Re: stable vs testing
You just don't know what you're missing...
till you run unstable.
----- Original Message -----
From: <cfm@maine.com>
To: <debian-isp@lists.debian.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2001 1:09 PM
Subject: Re: stable vs testing
> On Sun, Nov 11, 2001 at 10:30:56AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 09, 2001 at 03:32:29AM +1100, Jason Lim wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > another good idea is to install the same packages that your server
> > requires on another machine (e.g. a development box or your
> > workstation). then test every upgrade on that box before doing it on
> > your production server. if the upgrade works smoothly on the
workstation
> > then it's probably OK to run on the production server. if not, then
wait
> > a few days and run a test upgrade again.
> >
> > once you've done this a few times, you get a feel for what kinds of
> > problems to look out for, what to keep an eye on during & after the
> > upgrade.
>
> ...
>
> > in my experience, there is far less risk in upgrading regularly &
often
> > than there is in upgrading only when there is a new stable release.
you
> > get small incremental changes rather than one enormous change...one
> > advantage of this is that if something does go wrong, it's generally
> > only one or two problems at a time, which is much easier to deal with
> > than dozens or hundreds of simultaneous problems.
> ...
> > here's a good rule of thumb for deciding whether to run unstable:
> >
> > if you are highly skilled and you need the new versions in unstable
then
> > it's worth the risk to run unstable.
> >
> > if not, then stick to stable. most packages in unstable can easily be
> > recompiled for stable (depending on which dependancies you also have
to
> > recompile for stable...if there's too many, then it becomes more work
> > and more risk to recompile than it is to just upgrade to unstable)
>
> Yes, I can second that. Excepting only that if you are skilled enough
to
> recompile unstable source on stable you are probably more than skilled
enough
> to run vanilla unstable. :-)
>
> We typically upgrade all our development machines first. For the most
part,
> that catches most of the issues.
>
> --
>
> Christopher F. Miller, Publisher
cfm@maine.com
> MaineStreet Communications, Inc 208 Portland Road, Gray, ME
04039
> 1.207.657.5078
http://www.maine.com/
> Content/site management, online commerce, internet integration, Debian
linux
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-isp-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
>
Reply to: