* stan <stanb@awod.com> [20030305 03:54 PST]: > On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 02:44:41PM -0800, Vineet Kumar wrote: > > * stan <stanb@awod.com> [20030304 13:11 PST]: > > > My point is that the testing release ahs proven to be stable in a > > > production environemnt (for me at least), and has, for example, much more > > > current perl modules, than stable. This is required for our software to > > > work. > > > > Okay, so even if you've never used apt's pinning features > > (apt_preferences(5)), I find it hard to believe you've never heard of > > CPAN. > > I have, and I use it to update my HP-UX machines. I;m able to use FreeBSD's > ports system to update those machines. I prefer to keep everything on the > Debian machines handled by Debians excelent package management sytem. I > have found thta when I go outside this mechanisim, I pay for it in the long > run. Right, but another great thing about debian is that you can install your own stuff under /usr/local and not have to worry about getting it stomped on, or stomping on any of dpkg's toes. It's up to you whether running the cost you pay in the long run is greater with the "stable + self-compiled perl modules" vs "testing/unstable". For most people adminning production systems, I think the answer is generally stable + some custom stuff, or stable + select packages pinned from testing/unstable. Of course, the decision is up to you. BTW, thanks for using proper attribution, quoting, and reply placement =) > -- > "They that would give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve > neither liberty nor safety." > -- Benjamin Franklin And nice sig =) good times, Vineet -- http://www.doorstop.net/ -- http://www.anti-dmca.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature