On Sat, Jul 29, 2000 at 12:33:07PM +0200, Morten Liebach wrote: > > How is the lifecycle of ``unstable''? > > I'm thinking about upgrading from Potato to Woody and stick with it, but > I'm a little wary that it might pose too many problems along the way. > [[SNIP]] > And that was in the install step, I guess it's somewhat easier to fix > problems when you have a system running. I'd say in general that's true, but unless you have a good knowledge of your system and how things work it's still a pain... This list is very helpful. > Now, it seems to me that woody isn't very unstable right now (I haven't > tried, but it's not too different from Potato, right?), but will it not > become rather unstable f.ex. when perl 5.6 is introduced? Right now, it basically is potato with some few packages at slightly higher versions (most of the attention now is in getting bugs smashed in potato). _Hopefully_ the perl upgrade won't be as evil as the one in potato was, but chances are good that something somewhere will massively break. One good strategy is to wait a week on installing any new packages. If they've been out a week and no one's complained and no bugs have been files, you _should_ be safe. In any event, it means more work for you to keep your system in good working order. > I would like to hear from someone who has used Potato since it came into > existence, and how that has been. From what i've heard, it was actually easier staying with potato through thick and thin than upgrading from slink or installing fresh around the time of the freeze, because in the upgrade you got hit will all the little dependancy bugs in one fell swoop... This is really a choice only you can make. If you do go ahead and follow woody, make sure to file any bugs you find! -- finger for GPG public key.
Description: PGP signature