arochester wrote:One thing that amazes me is the number of comments which this has attracted.
I wonder how it can be such a live issue?
AdrianTM wrote:There's no hacker in my grandma...
spacex wrote:Debian should upgrade Stable with the versions from testing. It doesn't make Stable any less stable.
AdrianTM wrote:There's no hacker in my grandma...
spacex wrote:Nah, but Debian should get a newer version of "xscreensaver" and "xscreensaver-data" into stable, so that people don't get the outdated warnings anymore, and the annoying message about our distribution not doing us justice. Besides, the version in Testing are better, as in better screensavers. Obviously I have fixed it for myself, picked them directly from testing as all the dependencies are covered in Stable. That's the easy way to do it, but not the recommended way.
But it works for me, and nah, I have no intention of backporting it for others, because that comes with obligations. Debian should upgrade Stable with the versions from testing. It doesn't make Stable any less stable.
dilberts_left_nut wrote:spacex wrote:Debian should upgrade Stable with the versions from testing. It doesn't make Stable any less stable.
No they shouldn't and yes it does.
The 'stable' (does not change) policies have been there for a long time and have proven their worth in providing a dependable release.
I see no reason to make exceptions just because upstream wants it - that is one of the important points of free software, you must be free to modify it to suit your use case.
There are certain things that change faster and need special handling (browsers, AV etc.) but this isn't one of them - security fixes are backported to the released version as with everythng else, and the nag code is an artificial obsolescence introduced for ridiculous (and easily handled in other ways) reasons.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests