[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: "Avoiding the vendor perl fad diet"

On 01/31/2012 01:59 PM, Gabor Szabo wrote:

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Stefan Hornburg (Racke)
<racke@linuxia.de>  wrote:

On 01/31/2012 01:48 PM, Gabor Szabo wrote:


On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Damyan Ivanov<dmn@debian.org>    wrote:


Here's my recipe for deploying Perl applications:

  * ensure every dependency is packaged for Debian. If not, package it
   (this was why I joined the Debian Perl group :)
  * develop with current versions from Debian/unstable
  * deploy application as a Debian package, with proper dependencies
  * profit

Works very nice even for applications that have only one instance in
production and is a killer for multi-instance deployments.



Running Debian/unstable on a production machine sounds very risky.
If I understand, that means a lot of things are unstable
and I constantly need to upgrade. Even the kernel.
Which means frequent reboots as well. Right?



He said "develop with current versions", so I would presume that he runs
Debian/stable or Debian/testing on production.


Wow, that's now unclear to me.
Can someone "develop with current versions from Debian/unstable",
package missing dependencies (which if I understand correctly go into unstable)
and then use those packages on a Debian/testing or Debian/stable system?
What if perl has been upgraded between those?


Repackaging Perl modules for testing/stable usually isn't a big deal.

Of course there is always a risk of developing with bleeding edge and running
an older version on production, even if you make sure that you don't use
newer features. Burned me a few times too.



I know so little about Debian (and every other distro).



What do you use instead?

Regards
        Racke


--
LinuXia Systems => http://www.linuxia.de/
Expert Interchange Consulting and System Administration
ICDEVGROUP => http://www.icdevgroup.org/
Interchange Development Team
Reply to: