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

Re: is it a bad idea to use unstable on a server ?

* Jon Dowland <lists@alcopop.org> [2006-06-01 12:11]:
> >  * Is it a bad idea to use unstable on a production server when it
> >    comes to security?
> >  * If so, would you recommend using testing, or stable?
> >  * And does anyone with experience running unstable on production
> >    servers know of any other caveats I should be aware of?
> I ran unstable on a server for several years in order to have some more
> up-to-date packages (this was in the woody era). I eventually regretted
> it, as e.g. libc updates are things you can live without when trying to
> provide a stable service.

A, yes ... Woody ;-)

> I'd just go with stable, keep an eye on the debian-security list and
> backport anything that you really need (which should be very little).

I wouldn't mind the occasional breakage that comes with using
unstable, since the server is only meant to be used by myself and some
of the people I (have to) work with.  So as long as it stays secure I
can handle even occasional downtime to sort things out.

Do you think that security support for unstable is good enough for
this?  Or should I just go with stable + backports?

- 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: pgpv2XA80xLH3.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: