On Wed, Sep 08, 2010 at 12:19:40PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > Michael Gilbert wrote: > > A an option in the installer like volatile/security should address a > > lot of this concern. > > Unless it installs the package from backports, the most the installer > can do is eliminate one or two of the three or four things users must > do to use it. All my comments about user discoverability/usability still > apply. > > > > If backports are really officially supported, and we encourage users to > > > install a web browser from them, which is not available in stable, how > > > is that truely different than shipping the same web browser in stable? > > > > The difference is that there is no arduous backporting/dsa process to > > push that update > > If we're encouraging users to install a web browser from an officially > supported part of Debian, then the security support requirements are not > lessened *at all*.
Arguably, it's easier to get newest releases of the software as security support into testing and thus backports, than it is to get them in stable. Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100908164117.gb3...@glandium.org
