On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 10:36:35 -0800 Ken Irving <fnkci@uaf.edu> wrote: > > Is this still your recommendation? I've used testing in the past for > workstations, but from the recent discussions thought that unstable > would be the preferred choice when stable won't cut it. If you were to only track one distribution, if it were a choice of testing and unstable, I'd pick unstable. Right now, testing is fairly safe because of where we are in the release cycle, a few months after sarge goes out, watch out. I'm fully expecting KDE/GNOME breakage for a time as 3.2/2.6 come down. But there is another option, and that's to track testing, while carefully monitoring security notices and manually installing individual packages from unstable (on top of your install which is mostly testing) either in response to said security updates, or to try and fix breakage in testing. >> until you understand packaging tools. After which point you want >> to look at pinning. > > I'll have to look into pinning. I prefer running stable, but want some > packages not available there. The danger with solving this problem (need packages or versions of packages not present in stable) by continuing to run stable but pulling in individual packages from testing/unstable is that those packages will have dependencies, which will have dependencies, and suddenly you have a stable/testing/unstable hybrid, which can be difficult to maintain. Especially when one of those dependancies is on a new glibc, and suddenly you have to replace a large part of your installed packages. Backports are a much better option, if they're available or if you can do it. -c -- Chris Metzler cmetzler@speakeasy.snip-me.net (remove "snip-me." to email) "As a child I understood how to give; I have forgotten this grace since I have become civilized." - Chief Luther Standing Bear
Attachment:
pgpMTnzd01lGQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature