Re: it's safe to run a web hosting server with the unstable distributions ?
Typing away merrily, John Haggerty produced the immortal words:
> Then you could have the solution of say changing the name of the package
> to perhaps reflect that in fact you have perl4 or something and just
> install incremental upgrades for the packages that aren't prone to
> breakage. Eventually as people upgrade their stuff. You could slowly
> retire the old stuff while supporting the new.
Erm, as I understand what I wrote, that's part of what I said:
> If you have, eg, /bin/perl5.005_03 etc within the customer-facing root
> and maintain those properly, you can introduce new versions and allow
> the customers to manage the migration themselves; if you want to be able
> to retire older versions which are broken, make sure that the customer
> is aware of this fact and that they agree to a time-limit for phasing
> out older versions (contracts time again).
>From the Date: header in your mail, I see that it's still morning there.
Monday-morning. This explains a lot. :^) Another coffee?
(Note that I also warned about libperl - we recently got caught by this,
more than once. The best solution seems to be static compilation of
perl. Forcing perl to be entirely static is apparently not as
straight-forward as it should be; I don't know, though, as a couple of
colleagues handled this)
HTML email - just say no --> Phil Pennock
"We've got a patent on the conquering of a country through the use of force.
We believe in world peace through extortionate license fees." -Bluemeat