Your description is basically what i do. I have like 3 machines that basically do NAT and transparent proxying (ala SQUID) on three client networks. I ignorepkg = iptables, squid, kernel26 on all three of them.
Since my laptop also runz Arch, i always upgrade my laptop first... and find out if things work ok... (i had problems once upgrading SQUID). Once its cool on my laptop... i log into the servers and upgrade too :) Pretty painless... one of them has been going since Arch 0.5, the other two were installed with 0.6. No problems what so ever here. :) Essien Doug Jolley wrote: > Thanks again for all the thoughts. It occurs to me that one never > really *HAS* to update. There's no-one holding a gun to your head. So, > I'm thinking that maybe *A* way to proceed is to maintain a test server > that has all of the packages installed that we would normally install on > a production server. As packages are updated I can install them on the > test server and once I feel good about that I can then install them on > the production servers. The goal is to try to keep all the servers on > Current as far as is practical but do so in an orderly manner. That > would give me the option of saying at any point (for whatever reason) > that I just really don't want to update this particular package right > now. So, in a sense, it's a bit like maintaining my own repo as has > been suggested. I have a feeling that instances of not wanting to > update a particular package for an extended period would be pretty darn > rare. > > Also it occurs to me that what we're talking about here is how to get > from A to B. In one case the transition is going to be made by pretty > much mainting A for an extended period of time with only bug fixes and > security patches applied in the interim and then upgrading to B in one > fell swoop. The other approach is by making little incremental changes > along the way. In both cases, what happens is that we move from A to > B. The thing is that while the first approach tends to hold things > fairly stable over a longer period of time, the reality is that > ultimately one is going to have to move to B in one fell swoop and there > may be problems with that. > > In any event, I think the thing for me to do is to take a couple of my > least mission critical servers and give it a shot. I really want to use > Arch because I like it *SO* much better than anything else. > > Thanks for the input. > > ... doug > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > arch mailing list > arch@archlinux.org > http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch _______________________________________________ arch mailing list arch@archlinux.org http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
