Re: Is anyone using woody in a production environment?
john <johnpf@atnet.net.au> writes:
> 2) We upgrade to testing.
>
> Is it safe? <image of Marathon Man>. Who is running production servers
> on testing? what if any issues have arisen?
We run our production servers on testing. I haven't run into any
problems. We do an upgrade approximately once a week, but I watch for
security issues with packages and upgrade those when I see them.
We upgrade the dev boxes two days before the production boxes, and any
packages on the production boxes that I know we use regularly I put on
hold so that we get at least 2+n days of testing of that package on the
dev boxes (n = the number of days I keep the package on hold, and is
quite large, > 30 for some packages). So far, we haven't seen any
problems.
> 3) We build the Debian packages from testing on stable.
>
> I've tried this, and either got it wrong <quite likely> or it just
> doesn't work like that as build curl-ssl then wants perl, which doesnt
> want libdbi-perl. It wants a libc6 upgrade. Which might (will it?) break
> other things etc etc.
Yes, this is the approach we used to use, until the mess of dependencies
got so bad that we just bit the bullet and upgraded to woody. Once the
new perl and libc made it into testing, it got much harder to build and
install woody packages on potato.
--
Dave Carrigan (dave@rudedog.org) | Yow! You mean now I can SHOOT
UNIX-Apache-Perl-Linux-Firewalls-LDAP-C-DNS | YOU in the back and further BLUR
Seattle, WA, USA | th' distinction between FANTASY
http://www.rudedog.org/ | and REALITY?
Reply to: