Re: Debian sid and "risk management"
On Sat, 2004-12-25 at 10:05 -0600, Alex Malinovich wrote:
> [snip]
>
> Sid is probably not the right choice if you need to run a nuclear
> defense grid, but for day to day work on the desktop and even on
> servers, it's plenty stable enough in my experience.
I agree with this, with the caveat that you should already be
experienced with Debian before you try to do it seriously. It will run
flawlessly most of the time, but eventually an upgrade, or something you
try to do (e.g. installing from another unstable repository) will
probably require some maintenance.
>
> With that said, what I usually do for my servers is do an update every
> two weeks, storing the list of packages that WOULD be upgraded in a text
> file. Then when I do my next update, I compare that list vs the list of
> two weeks ago and only install the packages that HAVEN'T changed. This
> gives me a selection of two week old packages that MOST LIKELY work
> (since critical bugs are usually fixed within two weeks).
That's not a bad idea; I would almost consider doing that on my desktops
(although atm testing/sarge is pretty up to date on the user visible
stuff, e.g. GNOME). FWIW: on my servers, I run a mix of
testing/unstable; to minimize unforeseen downtime I only upgrade every
3-6 months (and keep my ear to the ground for security issues in the
applications we run, in case I might need to do it sooner).
mb
Reply to: