On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 03:02:53PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 11:49:15PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > > * Steve Langasek: > > > > Of course security support is essential for released architectures, > > > I don't think this is the case. Apparently, we have successfully > > without security support, therefore it cannot be "essential". > > This sentence no verb. In addition, this sentence big troll. Can we please > stop playing this little game of implying that the people involved think > it's somehow acceptable to not have security support for stable?
If that's the case, why do the people involved tolerate no security support for stable being available for more than a month now? Greetings Marc -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Haber | "I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | lose things." Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 621 72739834 Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 621 72739835 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
