Re: RHL 9 - concerns
Denice <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.redhat.release.phoebe |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Thomas Dodd wrote: > Denice wrote: > > won't matter too much. However, if they did the same for the high-risk > > bugs, then I would be flabbergasted. It would be suicidal. They will > > have to provide the patches for the dangerous bugs ANYway for the > > enterprise editions; how much larger an effort is it to provide patches > > for the high risk bugs for the RHL releases of the last, say, two years? > > Even if Red Hat doesn't issue those patches officialy, they will be > there. Look at the stuff on freshrpms.net. I would be surprized if noone > setup updates for psyche, using the SRPMS and either Red Hat's AS/ES/WS > SRPMS for extra patches, or the patches from the main developers. > > Hell, I've been doing similar for quiet some time. You should have seen > my vahalla box before moved to psyche as a base. Even now, my psyche > boxes are not even close to Red Hat supportable, with custom kernels, > XF86-4.3, DRI snapshots, mozilla-1.3, and many non Red Hat packages. Well, I guess everyone is different. Personally I install from very __few_ sources other than Red Hat. I liked my RPMs signed by sources that I decide to trust. I lost interest some time ago in being _that_ bleeding edge. Been there, done that. I like new stuff, but there are limits. I've spent too much time rescuing admins here at the school who got themselves in that trouble. Nope, I install and maintain generic black boxes. If I get hit by a bus tomorrow, I probably won't even be missed -- or at least, I wouldn't be missed if I would only update my documentation... :-O -- denice.deatrich @ epfl.ch, DSC / LTHC-LTHI, E.P.F.L. PH: +41 (21) 693 76 67 <*> This moment's fortune cookie: A pat on the back is only a few centimeters from a kick in the pants. -- Phoebe-list mailing list [email protected] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/phoebe-list