Re: more questions about LFS
Michael Stone wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2001 at 03:41:08PM +0100, Emil Pedersen wrote:
> > Running "apt-get dist-upgrade"? Would that realy change/benefit much if
> > there's only one application (the database engine) that needs lsf
> > support? Since it's a server that preferably should be up 24/7 I want
> > to stick to the most stable solution possible.
> You've already changed the C library...woody is much better tested than
> some random combination of woody+potato.
> Beyond that, are you sure you won't need *any* other userspace utilities
> that recognize large files? Perhaps ls? Once you start doing this it's
> often better to stick with an integrated whole than going the piecemeal
Your probably right. There are other applications that obviously don't
like large files (even though the file should not need to be opened,
just listed). Perhaps they use 'long' for tracking filesize or
something (and I have no desire of checking all standard utils like ls,
What's the average "stability" of a woody "snapshot" at some time? Do
people use it for productions servers normaly, and are there any special
concerns/coutions that have to be taken when running woody?