Re: Lenny vs. Etch + Backports

2007-09-28 Thread Johannes Wiedersich
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Michael C wrote: > Johannes Wiedersich wrote: > >> I am not sure if I understand correctly: What are your objections >> against debian's way of security fixes? > > Let's take the example of Seamonkey/Iceape. Officially EOL'd as of May, > the 1.0.x br

Re: Lenny vs. Etch + Backports

2007-09-27 Thread Michael C
Johannes Wiedersich wrote: I am not sure if I understand correctly: What are your objections against debian's way of security fixes? Let's take the example of Seamonkey/Iceape. Officially EOL'd as of May, the 1.0.x branch's security status is no longer being actively investigated by upstream d

Re: Lenny vs. Etch + Backports

2007-09-27 Thread Johannes Wiedersich
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Michael C wrote: > Hi, > > After returning to Linux last year as my main desktop OS, I've been > wanting to migrate to Debian. However, put off by the prospect of having > to use backported security fixes on officially retired development > branches s

Re: Lenny vs. Etch + Backports

2007-09-27 Thread Andrei Popescu
On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 02:37:03PM +0100, Michael C wrote: > Hi, > > After returning to Linux last year as my main desktop OS, I've been wanting > to migrate to Debian. However, put off by the prospect of having to use > backported security fixes on officially retired development branches such >

Lenny vs. Etch + Backports

2007-09-27 Thread Michael C
Hi, After returning to Linux last year as my main desktop OS, I've been wanting to migrate to Debian. However, put off by the prospect of having to use backported security fixes on officially retired development branches such as Thunderbird/Icedove 1.5 (for up to two years!), I'd far rather b