* 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:
pgpfimRcB9Og9.pgp
Description: PGP signature