Matt Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The business-as-usual practice would be to not run -Stable, but rather > run a -Release. -Stable, although more stable than -Current, should not > be run in business-production, although my hunch is that many small > environments do.
IMO, the best practice is to build your OS and thoroughly test it as you will be using it before putting it into important use. If you do this, you might as well use -STABLE. Otherwise, unless you really need something in -STABLE, you should use -RELEASE except that you should review security fixes, etc, and maybe upgrade using a cvs tag like RELENG_4_7 which has only important fixes for -RELEASE-4.7. > If you are running -Stable, then chances are you have some technical > knowledge, and could contribute back to the project, in which case > including debugging options could be helpful. AFAIK, including the debugging options is not risky or performance- harming (except maybe using more memory?). But for most people, it doesn't make much sense to use it unless you also prepare your OS to save crash dumps. Most will do all this only so they can help OS development by giving decent reports about OS crashes. I know of no good reason not to do it for any OS version, except to avoid the setup effort. It doesn't take much technical knowledge that can't be learned by reading the FAQ about "kernel panics" (and maybe a few manuals starting with crash(8)). To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
