On Mon,25.Aug.08, 13:29:24, Ernie Dunbar wrote: [...] > On our ns2: > # apt-cache policy debianutils > debianutils: > Installed: 2.8.4 > Candidate: 2.8.4 > Version Table: > *** 2.8.4 0 > 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status And how does sources.list look like? > And on our ns1: > > # apt-cache policy debianutils > debianutils: > Installed: 2.30 > Candidate: 2.30 > Version table: > *** 2.30 0 > 500 http://ftp.us.debian.org unstable/main Packages > 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status > > I could swear that I upgraded to Etch on our ns2 a while ago, but maybe it > hasn't been done. It's definitely done on the rest of our debian systems, > as the `apt-cache policy debianutils` shows 2.30, just like on ns1. Etch has 2.17. You are running unstable (sid), not etch. > As for running 'unstable' on production servers, I prefer to have > production servers with quick security updates, thank you very much. :) I think you are confusing things. Debian does not have any security support for unstable: http://www.debian.org/security/faq#unstable > And besides, we've had significantly less downtime since switching to > Debian and its 'apt-get upgrade's. 'Unstable' on Debian makes our old > "stable" servers look terribly more unstable. I don't understand what you mean by this. Are you stating that Debian sid is more stable than etch or than some other distro? Anyway, IMO you do *not* understand apt good enough to be running sid on production machines, and if you are so concerned about security why are you still running sarge (oldstable)? It's security support has ended in April! Regards, Andrei -- If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. (Albert Einstein)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature