john <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 2) We upgrade to testing. > > Is it safe? <image of Marathon Man>. Who is running production servers > on testing? what if any issues have arisen?
We run our production servers on testing. I haven't run into any problems. We do an upgrade approximately once a week, but I watch for security issues with packages and upgrade those when I see them. We upgrade the dev boxes two days before the production boxes, and any packages on the production boxes that I know we use regularly I put on hold so that we get at least 2+n days of testing of that package on the dev boxes (n = the number of days I keep the package on hold, and is quite large, > 30 for some packages). So far, we haven't seen any problems. > 3) We build the Debian packages from testing on stable. > > I've tried this, and either got it wrong <quite likely> or it just > doesn't work like that as build curl-ssl then wants perl, which doesnt > want libdbi-perl. It wants a libc6 upgrade. Which might (will it?) break > other things etc etc. Yes, this is the approach we used to use, until the mess of dependencies got so bad that we just bit the bullet and upgraded to woody. Once the new perl and libc made it into testing, it got much harder to build and install woody packages on potato. -- Dave Carrigan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) | Yow! You mean now I can SHOOT UNIX-Apache-Perl-Linux-Firewalls-LDAP-C-DNS | YOU in the back and further BLUR Seattle, WA, USA | th' distinction between FANTASY http://www.rudedog.org/ | and REALITY?
