> I'm not clear on when its ok to upload a fix to a stable
> distribution. This is clearly not a security issue or even
> a serious problem. Would it still be appropriate to upload
> to slink?
It's the eternal debate about what the word 'stable' means in a
software distribution. One definition
On 29 Apr 1999, Gary L. Hennigan wrote:
> My question is why hasn't this been fixed? Or perhaps it has and
> somehow my system just isn't up-to-date? Or was it deemed too simple a
> fix to warrant a new version of cracklib-runtime?
It has been fixed and uploaded to potato. There has since
been
Phillip Deackes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gary L. Hennigan) wrote:
| > I have a system that I hadn't bothered adding "> dev/null" to the
| > appropriate place in /etc/cron.daily/cracklib to avoid the email
| > (slink distribution). It's on a seldom used system and I just neve
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gary L. Hennigan) wrote:
> I have a system that I hadn't bothered adding "> dev/null" to the
> appropriate place in /etc/cron.daily/cracklib to avoid the email
> (slink distribution). It's on a seldom used system and I just never
> bothered. I had hoped that the simple fix would
In foo.debian-user, you wrote:
> I have a system that I hadn't bothered adding "> dev/null" to the
> appropriate place in /etc/cron.daily/cracklib to avoid the email
> (slink distribution). It's on a seldom used system and I just never
> bothered. I had hoped that the simple fix would be quickly up
I have a system that I hadn't bothered adding "> dev/null" to the
appropriate place in /etc/cron.daily/cracklib to avoid the email
(slink distribution). It's on a seldom used system and I just never
bothered. I had hoped that the simple fix would be quickly uploaded
and I wouldn't need to bother. W
6 matches
Mail list logo
