On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 08:22:20AM -0600, Kent West wrote: > YH wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > Is sarge stable to install? > > Depends on your criteria. For personal workstation use, I find even Sid > to be stable enough for my needs, and that way I get all the newest goodies. > > If I were installing a non-critical server, I'd probably go with Stable. > For a critical server, I'd stick with Woody for now. > > > I want to use 2.6 kernel, either I can upgrade kernel from woody or > > re-install completely from Sarge, which one is better? > > > If you're only wanting to upgrade your kernel, and the 2.6 series is not > in the Woody repositories (implied from your post, but I haven't checked > lately), and you have network access, you can add the Stable lines into > your /etc/apt/sources.list file and then do: > > apt-get update > apt-cache search kernel-image-2.6 > apt-get install [whatever 2.6 kernel you need/want that's now available] > > Once you have a working machine with the new kernel, if you then want to > upgrade the entire system to Stable, follow up with: > > apt-get dist-upgrade > > No need to do a re-install. I personally would go the other direction. > I'd upgrade my system first (with the dist-upgrade), then upgrade my > kernel. But that's just me. >
I don't think Sarge has been officially released. Woody is still the official stable release. I think you meant Sarge in all above instances where you made reference to stable. GCrimp -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
