Re: Fwd: Stable or Just Old?
From: Michael Katz (katznik_at_gmail.com)
Date: 03/31/05
- Previous message: Frederic Guillet: "intrusion via ssh"
- In reply to: Paul Johnson: "Re: Fwd: Stable or Just Old?"
- Next in thread: Dave Ewart: "Re: Fwd: Stable or Just Old?"
- Reply: Dave Ewart: "Re: Fwd: Stable or Just Old?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 05:58:18 -0500 To: Paul Johnson <baloo@ursine.ca>
It is easy to find the answer, it is well known, but the answer that
debian gives is not really acceptable given all of the emperical data
about the security of updated glibc implementations . The stubborn
position of Debian is really undefensible, even with an faq. If i
don't make my opinion known then they will continue to be subborn, at
least now they can be stubborn and know that there decision has impact
on real people trying to support their software.
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 15:00:49 -0800, Paul Johnson <baloo@ursine.ca> wrote:
> On Wednesday 30 March 2005 03:40 am, Michael Katz wrote:
> > Why does debian stable use glibc 2.2.5 which is over 3 years old?
>
> Why couldn't you have searched the debian-devel archives and found
> your answer?
>
> --
> Paul Johnson
> Email and Instant Messenger (Jabber): baloo@ursine.ca
> http://ursine.ca/~baloo/
>
>
>
-- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
- Previous message: Frederic Guillet: "intrusion via ssh"
- In reply to: Paul Johnson: "Re: Fwd: Stable or Just Old?"
- Next in thread: Dave Ewart: "Re: Fwd: Stable or Just Old?"
- Reply: Dave Ewart: "Re: Fwd: Stable or Just Old?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|