Hi, Paul:
On Saturday 21 November 2009 00:36:12 Paul E Condon wrote:
> On 20091120_212056, Jes?s M. Navarro wrote:
[...]
> > Unfortunately? I'd better say "by design". Unstable/Testing is not
> > there to provide a product to final users but to provide a testbed for
> > software integration.
On 20091120_212056, Jes?s M. Navarro wrote:
> Hi Gerfried:
>
> On Thursday 19 November 2009 13:55:25 Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > Thanks to Sven for bringing the thread to my attention.
> >
> > * Sven Hoexter [2009-11-19 08:42:49 CET]:
> > > On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 02:16:15PM +0700,
Hi Gerfried:
On Thursday 19 November 2009 13:55:25 Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Thanks to Sven for bringing the thread to my attention.
>
> * Sven Hoexter [2009-11-19 08:42:49 CET]:
> > On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 02:16:15PM +0700, Sthu Deus wrote:
> > > I have searched backport, wiki web s
to track it myself and pester people to update their packages,
though currently I'm in a bit of time constrain trouble myself and have
to priorize other things, it's not like if I wouldn't like to continue
on that front. :/
> Additionaly there is a backports-security-announce lis
of the backport who is responsible to care for
uploads in case of security issue. So it doesn't hurt if you keep an eye on
the backports aswell that you install. Since you should install only selected
backports where needed you've to monitor just those very few selected packages.
Addition
Good day.
I have searched backport, wiki web sites and still can not understand: does
debian security team works with its packages or not? In other words, using
stable only and desiring the same security quality, I would not use the
backports repo? Am i correct?
Thank You for Your time.
--
* John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-06-04 18:34]:
> Felix C. Stegerman writes:
> > I'll stick with stable and backport mysql, vim and the kernel
> > myself.
>
> First check backports.org. Someone probably has already done it
> (and there are 2.6 kernels in Stable).
backports.org has mysql-se
Felix C. Stegerman writes:
> I'll stick with stable and backport mysql, vim and the kernel myself.
First check backports.org. Someone probably has already done it (and there
are 2.6 kernels in Stable).
--
John Hasler
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscrib
* "Roberto C. Sanchez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-06-01 16:33]:
> Felix C. Stegerman wrote:
> >
> > I'm running unstable on my desktop (well, actually a laptop), so I'm
> > accustomed to the occasional breakage and could probably live with it.
> >
> > I'm just reluctant to use unstable on a produc
* Johannes Wiedersich [2006-06-01 17:53]:
> Felix C. Stegerman wrote:
>
> > Do you know what would be the best way to make sure I don't miss any
> > of those updates? If I backport e.g. mysql from unstable/testing,
> > will I be able to rely on security announcements to debian-security,
> > or do
Felix C. Stegerman wrote:
> Do you know what would be the best way to make sure I don't miss any
> of those updates? If I backport e.g. mysql from unstable/testing,
> will I be able to rely on security announcements to debian-security,
> or do I need to check for new vulnerabilities upstream?
J
George Borisov wrote:
> Felix C. Stegerman wrote:
>
>>Wouldn't mixing stable and testing be less secure than using
>>backports? Or is security support for testing good enough to rely on
>>for (some packages on) production servers?
>
>
> Supposedly testing gets security updates now. It is in
> s
Felix C. Stegerman wrote:
>
> Wouldn't mixing stable and testing be less secure than using
> backports? Or is security support for testing good enough to rely on
> for (some packages on) production servers?
Supposedly testing gets security updates now. It is in
security.debian.org together with
Felix C. Stegerman wrote:
>
> I'm running unstable on my desktop (well, actually a laptop), so I'm
> accustomed to the occasional breakage and could probably live with it.
>
> I'm just reluctant to use unstable on a production server connected to
> the internet, because I don't want to leave the
* Andrei Popescu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-06-01 14:47]:
> > > It is said that compiling your own kernel with make-kpkg should
> > > be pretty easy. It generates a kernel package which you can than
> > > install with "dpkg -i". Never tried it myself though ...
> > > Compiling smaller software is ge
* "Roberto C. Sanchez" [2006-06-01 14:59]:
> Felix C. Stegerman wrote:
> >
> > I've thought about using unstable (see an earlier thread I
> > started), and decided to go with stable instead. But it's nice to
> > know that unstable can be used with very little problem.
> >
>
> In general, there
* George Borisov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-06-01 11:39]:
> Felix C. Stegerman wrote:
> >
> > I'm about to install sarge on a (production) server of my own, and
> > would rather like to have the latest versions of:
> > * mysql (5.0)
> > * vim (7.0)
> > * the Linux kernel (2.6.16) [ppc]
>
> T
* Johannes Wiedersich [2006-06-01 12:39]:
> > I'm about to install sarge on a (production) server of my own, and
> > would rather like to have the latest versions of:
> > * mysql (5.0)
> > * vim (7.0)
> > * the Linux kernel (2.6.16) [ppc]
> > Since these are not in sarge, I'm considering usin
Felix C. Stegerman wrote:
>
> I've thought about using unstable (see an earlier thread I started),
> and decided to go with stable instead. But it's nice to know that
> unstable can be used with very little problem.
>
In general, there are not too many problems or breakages with unstable.
Occa
"Felix C. Stegerman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Andrei Popescu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-06-01 08:10]:
> > > * Also, since even backports.org does not seem to have vim 7.0 and
> > > kernel 2.6.16 (yet), what would be the best way/place to get these
> > > from ? Should I (try to) bac
Felix C. Stegerman wrote:
Hi,
I'm about to install sarge on a (production) server of my own, and
would rather like to have the latest versions of:
* mysql (5.0)
* vim (7.0)
* the Linux kernel (2.6.16) [ppc]
Since these are not in sarge, I'm considering using backported
versions from backp
Felix C. Stegerman wrote:
>
> I'm about to install sarge on a (production) server of my own, and
> would rather like to have the latest versions of:
> * mysql (5.0)
> * vim (7.0)
> * the Linux kernel (2.6.16) [ppc]
The latter will probably cause the most problems. The Debian packages of
the
* Robert Van Horn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-06-01 08:41]:
> > * Are you using unofficial repositories (e.g. backports.org) on
> > production servers ?
> > * Do you (and can I) trust backports.org ?
> > * Also, since even backports.org does not seem to have vim 7.0 and
> > kernel 2.6.1
* Andrei Popescu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-06-01 08:10]:
> > * Also, since even backports.org does not seem to have vim 7.0 and
> > kernel 2.6.16 (yet), what would be the best way/place to get these
> > from ? Should I (try to) backport them myself ?
>
> It is said that compiling your o
"Felix C. Stegerman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Also, since even backports.org does not seem to have vim 7.0 and
> kernel 2.6.16 (yet), what would be the best way/place to get these
> from ? Should I (try to) backport them myself ?
It is said that compiling your own kernel with mak
Hi,
I'm about to install sarge on a (production) server of my own, and
would rather like to have the latest versions of:
* mysql (5.0)
* vim (7.0)
* the Linux kernel (2.6.16) [ppc]
Since these are not in sarge, I'm considering using backported
versions from backports.org. I was however una
26 matches
Mail list logo
