on Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 01:30:08PM +0100, Diego Biurrun ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 11:12:17PM -0800, kmself@ix.netcom.com wrote: > > > > I'd recommend sticking to "stable" initially. It's better to track by > > release status than by distribution name -- you'll gracefully upgrade to > > the next release when it becomes stable, rather than being stuck on > > "potato" forever. If you decide that dealing with the occasional wart
> Why should it be preferable to track release status? > > You might accidentally upgrade your mission critical server to a new > distribution when you just wished to install the newest security > patches. A few details always break or have to be modified by hand. > I think it is much safer to track release names and do such an upgrade > on purpose. Possible. Then again, if it's a mission-critical server, you should be observing your updates closely, and rolling them out in a testbed prior to production deployment. Others have suggested setting up your own local Debian-derived distro from which you update your own systems, referencing the local distro from /etc/apt/sources.list rather than the cannonical sources. Tracking a status means that you *will* be on a particular update path at all times. Tracking a distribution means that you will slide from unstable to testing to stable to obsolete over time. Why would you want to do the latter? -- Karsten M. Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? There is no K5 cabal http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/ http://www.kuro5hin.org
pgp1vKCJqIxn4.pgp
Description: PGP signature
