On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 08:49:17PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote: > On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 09:46:13AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 01:22:12PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote: > > > debian 'unstable' is perfectly usable for production servers, using > > > it for such does not require any more caution about upgrades than > > > using debian 'stable' or debian 'frozen'. > > > > Like during the Perl transition period, or when a recent libstdc++ > > broke apt, or when su stopped being able to su, or when .... > > > > Need I continue? > > i repeat: "[using unstable] does not require any more caution about > upgrades than [using stable]" > > upgrading to whatever the latest stable releases is requires just as much > caution/paranoia as upgrading to whatever is in the latest unstable. anyone > who trusts the latest debian stable release on their critical/production > servers without testing it on other machines first deserves whatever they > get. > > if you have a clue and you are cautious then both stable and unstable are > safe. if you don't have a clue or you are not cautious, then neither are.
A very good point. I've had breaks before now with permissions on /dev/ptmx, for example ("stable"? It was stormix I started from ;) going to 'frozen' - they can happen *between versions* as well as "is using unstable". If we weren't up to fixing the odd occasional buglet, we wouldn't be dist-upgrading against either frozen or unstable every day religiously ;] It's the ones where the pre-configure script calls a binary giving "exec format not recognised" that crack me up ;8) ~Tim -- | Geek Code: GCS dpu s-:+ a-- C++++ UBLUAVHSC++++ P+++ L++ E--- W+++(--) N++ | w--- O- M-- V-- PS PGP++ t--- X+(-) b D+ G e++(*) h++(*) r--- y- | The sun is melting over the hills, | http://piglet.is.dreaming.org/ | All our roads are waiting / To be revealed | [EMAIL PROTECTED]