on Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 01:38:07PM -0700, Craig Dickson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Karsten M. Self wrote: > > > > I've found unstable to be of better use than testing. The reason is > > > that even bugfixes need at least 10 days to go into testing, whereas in > > > unstable they could be included the next day. > > > > ...but not security updates, IIRC. These should be available > > immediately. > > So you're saying that things that go into the security updates site > don't also appear in unstable? And this isn't just because the security > fixes are against stable packages that are already superseded in > unstable?
I honestly don't know, I've got fuzzy memories suggesting this may be the case, and I figure it covers the ground. I'm still trying to get fully clear on what testing does/doesn't do anyways. -- Karsten M. Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? There is no K5 cabal http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/ http://www.kuro5hin.org Free Dmitry! Boycott Adobe! Repeal the DMCA! http://www.freesklyarov.org Geek for Hire http://kmself.home.netcom.com/resume.html
pgppLD2kmzt8X.pgp
Description: PGP signature
