Re: Newbieish question
Brian Ballsun-Stantonwrites:
> Thank you, Its not so much upgrading to testing, or to 2.4... I'm just
> wondering if 2.4 will improve stablitity in unstable.
It will make no difference. Don't upgrade your kernel unless you need to.
BTW, 'unstable' doesn't mean what you think it does. It isn't that
machines running unstable are likely to crash, it's that maintainers are
constantly uploading to it, so that at any given time it may contain buggy
packages.
> The only thing I have to go to unstable for is samba-tng (for my 2k
> clients). And I want to minimize my risk of downtime.
Assuming that samba-tng has made it into testing, you could add testing to
your /etc/apt/sources.list and do
'apt-get update; apt-get install samba-tng'
This will install samba-tng and upgrade only what has to be upgraded to
satisfy its dependencies (which could be quite a bit). It's probably quite
safe to just do 'apt-get update; apt-get dist-upgrade', though.
> Is woody more stable than unstable?
Woody (testing) is more stable than Sid (unstable). Packages move
from unstable to testing when all their dependencies can be satisfied and
they (in most cases) have been bug-free for two weeks.
Probably the biggest headache in running testing on a server is security.
The security team does not release updates for testing, so you will have to
monitor the security alerts by hand instead of just running
'apt-get update' from security.debian.org every night.
--
John Hasler
john@dhh.gt.org (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
Reply to: