Re: stable vs testing
We run unstable on our production servers. That means we must be very
vigilant in making sure no one else has had a problem. We download the
updates, and install them a day or two later after other people have
tested it and made sure it doesn't totally destroy the box. The reason we
run unstable is because quite a few times we've needed new software, and
it just wasn't in stable.
Anyway, thats our take on it... and its never failed us so far. Takes
quite a bit of effort though... so watch out.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin WHEELER" <email@example.com>
To: "Glenn Hocking" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 2:58 AM
Subject: Re: stable vs testing
> On Thu, 8 Nov 2001, Glenn Hocking wrote:
> > My question is what other experiences have others have running
> > testing/unstable in a live environment with regards to both security
> > stability.
> unstable is very much a "trust this and die" environment.
> NOT recommended for a critically live installation.
> I run testing in a live environment -- BUT:
> I have *two* copies of the system software on the same machine (on
> different physical disks); one of which is always two-three days behind
> the other in terms of update/upgrade.
> So if tonight's upgrade makes something go bang, I can usually recover
> as soon as I notice. (Case in point: libexpat went agley on me a couple
> of weeks ago, but fortunately I was able to copy over a library file
> from one system to another to sort it.)
> - Share your knowledge. It's a way to achieve immortality -
> pub 1024D/01269BEB 2001-09-29 Martin Wheeler (personal key)
> Key fingerprint = 6CAD BFFB DB11 653E B1B7 C62B AC93 0ED8 0126 9BEB
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact