From owner-freebsd-security Wed Apr 11 12: 7: 6 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from sj-msg-core-3.cisco.com (sj-msg-core-3.cisco.com [171.70.157.152]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7AFA37B422; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 12:06:54 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bmah@cisco.com) Received: from bmah-freebsd-0.cisco.com (bmah-freebsd-0.cisco.com [171.70.84.42]) by sj-msg-core-3.cisco.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA23658; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 12:05:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from bmah@localhost) by bmah-freebsd-0.cisco.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) id f3BJ6rn34644; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 12:06:53 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bmah) Message-Id: <200104111906.f3BJ6rn34644@bmah-freebsd-0.cisco.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.3.1 01/19/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Jason DiCioccio Cc: bmah@FreeBSD.ORG, sjohn@airlinksys.com, freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG, Jason.DiCioccio@Epylon.com Subject: Re: Security Announcements In-Reply-To: <20010411185004.A68F213642@bluenugget.net> References: <20010411185004.A68F213642@bluenugget.net> Comments: In-reply-to Jason DiCioccio message dated "Wed, 11 Apr 2001 10:50:04 -0800." From: bmah@FreeBSD.ORG (Bruce A. Mah) Reply-To: bmah@FreeBSD.ORG X-Face: g~c`.{#4q0"(V*b#g[i~rXgm*w;:nMfz%_RZLma)UgGN&=j`5vXoU^@n5v4:OO)c["!w)nD/!!~e4Sj7LiT'6*wZ83454H""lb{CC%T37O!!'S$S&D}sem7I[A 2V%N&+ X-Image-Url: http://www.employees.org/~bmah/Images/bmah-cisco-small.gif X-Url: http://www.employees.org/~bmah/ Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_1046195591P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 12:06:53 -0700 Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org --==_Exmh_1046195591P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii If memory serves me right, Jason DiCioccio wrote: > And how would I know which day/time was considered reasonably bug-free. > I do not know of any webpages or anything that tell you this, Read -stable (you are doing that right?). I care more about how machines work in my own environment that what some Web page says. You mentioned the hypothetical case of someone running -STABLE on boxes that needed to be "up at all times". Tell me that this someone would be willing to drop a new version of *any* operating system on mission-critical machines without testing on their own scratch machines first. > nor does > any given time in the -STABLE branch get as much testing as a -RELEASE.. For people who need version of FreeBSD that's been though testing (and there is nothing whatsoever wrong with that), well, they should be running -RELEASE. There's been a lot of discussion as to how to deal with the issue of security updates to -RELEASEs, and the message that rwatson recently posted outlines the result of that discussion. I think this is going to solve a lot of problems, even though it's going to create more work for those who make advisories and patches. Bruce. --==_Exmh_1046195591P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Exmh version 2.2 06/23/2000 iD8DBQE61KtN2MoxcVugUsMRAi6dAKCmFj9vFDcRStpCGphH+bjwcwsRJACg1A4g KnGQSoYDCm+ZU5DTbPZGvKs= =4NM5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_1046195591P-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message