Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 15:05:32 -0700 From: Warner Losh <imp@village.org> To: Marc Slemko <marcs@znep.com> Cc: Adam Kubicki <mikee@solozzo.tele.pw.edu.pl>, freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: why is -stable not secure? Message-ID: <E0vZlAD-0005R6-00@rover.village.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 16 Dec 1996 12:18:39 MST." <Pine.BSF.3.95.961216120718.9445A-100000@alive.ampr.ab.ca> References: <Pine.BSF.3.95.961216120718.9445A-100000@alive.ampr.ab.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <Pine.BSF.3.95.961216120718.9445A-100000@alive.ampr.ab.ca> Marc Slemko writes: : Because no one has put them there. They can be there the second after : they are in -current if they are put there; that happens when the person : committing them feels confident enough in the patch and has the time to. Likely because no one is confortable enough making blind commits to the -stable branch. I've put a few deltas into the stable branch, but only after finding people to test them. It is much harder than it would appear. -stable is dead dead dead dead. (the CVS branch based on 2.1.x that is). If you are worried about security, running 2.2 when it is released may be your best bet. wish I had better news :-( Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?E0vZlAD-0005R6-00>