Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 02:52:56 +0930 From: Wincent Colaiuta <wincentcolaiuta@mac.com> To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: security fixes Message-ID: <592EA664-8DE0-11D6-A483-003065C60B4C@mac.com> In-Reply-To: <009201c2213a$dd3a4b00$edec910c@fbccarthage.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
El Tuesday, 2 July, 2002, a las 05:37 AM, Kevin Kinsey, DaleCo, S.P.=20 escribi=F3: > Some people read the warning about -STABLE in > the Handbook (that I quoted earlier) and decide only > to run -RELEASE and patch security fixes, and > there is a cvs tag for this, called RELENG_4_x. > This is where a little confusion comes in, because > after a while they quit patching the older releases. So on production systems track RELENG_4_6 now, and when that stops being=20= updated, start tracking RELENG_4_7, and so on.... I can't see any=20 problems with that. That way you're tracking the security fixes and=20 critical patches, and then when you need to you're upgrading your entire=20= system in safe way. I think the advice to not track STABLE on production machines is good.=20= Sure, STABLE is mostly exactly that: STABLE. But there are always going=20= to be exceptions... The last thing you want is a machine that won't boot=20= after something went wrong and you have to pay $$$ to get access to the=20= datacentre and rescue the machine... Cheers Wincent To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?592EA664-8DE0-11D6-A483-003065C60B4C>