On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 06:04:31PM +1200, Matthew Gregan wrote: > On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 05:39:20PM +1200, Ben Aitchison wrote: > > > Well, you have to update for security issues. And often there are > > dependicies that decide they want to be updated too. I much prefer > > just having upgrades every 6 months. > > If you update something that other packages depends on, you need to > rebuild the dependant packages, or install the binaries of them anyway. > So nothing is different there. > > Where is this 'constantly changing' system? > > Six month upgrade cycles don't include fixes for security or > correctness. You have to keep up-to-date with them as anybody else > does--as the fixes become available.
Yeah, but won't security updates also need core system components to be updated? That's what I seem to remember. I realise you can do apt-get update, without doing an apt-get -u upgrade, and then just apt-get install <package with security update> and then specifically upgrade packages. I'm just not sure that's good enough. I used to use Debian unstable once a time. But that's back when I had "too much spare time". I didn't get many breakages. But things did break and things did change. Ben.
