Re: A small Debian-NP detail
On Thu, May 27, 2004 at 01:45:34PM +0100, Jim Bailey wrote:
> > Don't let the "testing" label scare you: I've been running testing and KDE
> > 3.2 every day all day for a couple weeks and have not had a single
> > problem.
>
> I too have run testing in a production environment in the past without
> problems but I now believe there is a better way.
I've been using testing on my personal desktop for several years now,
constantly upgrading, and it works very well. In my experience it is
much much more stable than the stable releases of some other
distributions (e.g. Mandrake a few years ago).
Heck, Debian unstable is often more stable than other distributions!
> To me it is a much cleaner solution than running a mixed
> stable/testing/unstable box and all the associated pinning hoohah and
> makes troubleshooting a deal easier too.
I just make sure I only have stable and testing in /etc/apt/sources.list.
Also I never upgrade all packages (dist-upgrade) until a new stable
distribution comes out. I just "apt-get install" individual things
that I want from testing.
> http://www.backports.org/
>
> The text below is the intro from the home page.
>
> You are running Debian stable, because you prefer the stable Debian
> tree. It runs great, there is just one problem: the software is a little
> bit outdated compared to other distributions. That is where backports
> come in.
Backports is useful, but keep in mind that this is effectively a whole
separate set of packages, another distribution really. For one simple
backport, this will work well. But I'd have my doubts about a
backport of something more complex like KDE - given how stable
"testing" is, there doesn't seem any benefit to using lots and lots of
backports. "stable" with many backports will be less tested, and
possibly more unstable than "testing".
Francis
Reply to: