[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [backports & security]



* "Roberto C. Sanchez" [2006-06-01 14:59]:
> Felix C. Stegerman wrote:
> > 
> > I've thought about using unstable (see an earlier thread I
> > started), and decided to go with stable instead.  But it's nice to
> > know that unstable can be used with very little problem.
> > 
> 
> In general, there are not too many problems or breakages with
> unstable.  Occasionally, complex packages will experience RC bugs or
> other such things will happen.  Security is generally handled
> quickly as well, as new package versions are first uploaded into
> unstable anyways.  The problem is that as an administrator, you have
> no guarantee that the behavior of your system will remain the same
> from one dist-upgrade to the next.  If you are running services in
> production, this could be a problem.  If you can stand occasional
> down time while you sort out such issues or if you have additional
> test servers, this tends to not be as much of a problem.

I'm running unstable on my desktop (well, actually a laptop), so I'm
accustomed to the occasional breakage and could probably live with it.

I'm just reluctant to use unstable on a production server connected to
the internet, because I don't want to leave the server (potentially)
vulnerable.

If, however, security updates to unstable are reliable enough, I would
seriously consider using it (and test upgrades on my laptop first).

Would you say unstable is reliable enough to use on a production
server that can handle occasional downtime?  Without any unnecessary
risk of leaving it open to vulnerabilities?


- Felix

-- 
Felix C. Stegerman <flx@obfusk.net>                  http://obfusk.net
~ "Any sufficiently advanced bug is indistinguishable from a feature."
~   -- R. Kulawiec
~ vim: set ft=mail tw=70 sw=2 sts=2 et:

Attachment: pgpmqa5EJbnFN.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: