professionals. And yeah, client switching to Solaris may
> tell something about their understanding of security... but then
> isn't it all the more important for Debian to get it right and help
> protect those that don't know better?
[1] Constitution §4.2.1, §5.1.5
[2] C
that some of them have been thus for a very long time.
--
G. Branden Robinson
Debian Project Leader
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://people.debian.org/~branden/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
e86 4.1.0-16woody4
> (xbase-clients_4.1.0-16woody4_alpha.deb).
> Rejected: no source found for xfree86 4.1.0-16woody4
> (libxaw7-dbg_4.1.0-16woody4_alpha.deb).
> Rejected: no source found for xfree86 4.1.0-16woody4 (xprt_4.1.0-16woody4_alpha.deb).
> Rejected: no source found for xfre
Package: www.debian.org
Version: unavailable; reported 2003-07-08
Severity: important
I keep forcing a refresh, but:
http://www.debian.org/security/
continues to not display the most recent 4 Debian Security Advisories.
They are:
[DSA-339-1] New semi, wemi packages fix insecure temporary file
Package: www.debian.org
Version: unavailable; reported 2003-07-08
Severity: important
I keep forcing a refresh, but:
http://www.debian.org/security/
continues to not display the most recent 4 Debian Security Advisories.
They are:
[DSA-339-1] New semi, wemi packages fix insecure temporary file
5 matches
Mail list logo
