Look Greg,
in the original post, I referred the security patch introduced breakage
jut to point out the existence of such risk, in order to make weighting
the risks more realistic. Just like this: "There is some degree of risk
of breaking functionality connected to upgrading to recent upstream
version. There is also some degree of risk connected to backpatching the
old version, that is increasing with the age of software. Both are real,
both can cause severe damage. The probability of each one, _that_ is the
matter of question."
That should be changed anyway, since security upgrades occasionally
break things too.
You keep saying this,
That's just because people keep asking for proof and questioning the
bare existence of the risk of security patch introduced breakage.
I haven't seen this in Sarge at all. Sarge has had
HOW MANY security updates that broke things? Etch's security updates
including the Kernel upgrade had no noticeable problems... but of course
the two *OBSCURE* issues reported affect you, right?
Should there be more appropriate word that "ocassionally", please
suggest one. My english is not perfect.
Of course I listed only those issues that affected me. If You want more,
go, ask someone else.
You keep trying to HIT these things home, but the more you do this, the
more you look foolish. These problems are mainly Woody and before,
except for the LONG release time for Sarge. The Woody security updates
for Mozilla was REALLY HARD.
I stated before, bugs are inevitable, either in tested "stable"
software, or upstream stable, or in security upgrades. There is no
intention to harm anybody. Just name the facts.
I'd say that Mozilla's backpatching was insanity from the start, the
software was developing rapidly during the Woody's life.
Peter
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
