* "Roberto C. Sanchez" [2006-06-01 14:59]: > Felix C. Stegerman wrote: > > > > I've thought about using unstable (see an earlier thread I > > started), and decided to go with stable instead. But it's nice to > > know that unstable can be used with very little problem. > > > > In general, there are not too many problems or breakages with > unstable. Occasionally, complex packages will experience RC bugs or > other such things will happen. Security is generally handled > quickly as well, as new package versions are first uploaded into > unstable anyways. The problem is that as an administrator, you have > no guarantee that the behavior of your system will remain the same > from one dist-upgrade to the next. If you are running services in > production, this could be a problem. If you can stand occasional > down time while you sort out such issues or if you have additional > test servers, this tends to not be as much of a problem.
I'm running unstable on my desktop (well, actually a laptop), so I'm accustomed to the occasional breakage and could probably live with it. I'm just reluctant to use unstable on a production server connected to the internet, because I don't want to leave the server (potentially) vulnerable. If, however, security updates to unstable are reliable enough, I would seriously consider using it (and test upgrades on my laptop first). Would you say unstable is reliable enough to use on a production server that can handle occasional downtime? Without any unnecessary risk of leaving it open to vulnerabilities? - Felix -- Felix C. Stegerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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:
pgpJknCWEfWSR.pgp
Description: PGP signature
