On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 12:40:26PM +0000, john lewis wrote:
> I have been running Debian unstable on my main system with no serious
> problems for more than 5 years.
> It isn't any problem to maintain
Eep! Please don't run Debian unstable unless like John you know what
you're doing and you're happy to take those risks. Note that John says
he's been doing it for 5 years.
Please don't advocate normal users run Debian unstable either! The name
should be a clue and you definitely get to keep both pieces if it
breaks. It's an advantage if you hang out on Debian lists/IRC channels
if you do run unstable but it really isn't a solution to the problem of
"I'd like more up to date packages".
> I wouldn't suggest using testing for a server as IMHO it is more
> likely to be broken some of the time than unstable, it is of course
> used for the transition from unstable to (currently) wheezy so is
> going to change just as often as unstable.
Testing shouldn't suffer (as much) from the dependency problems of
unstable and if there are serious bugs then they prevent packages
migrating. In general though it is still much riskier than running
Debian stable.
> So unless there is a version of a package you absolutely must have,
> stick to stable for your server. It might be worth checking backports
> to see if there is a later version of the package you need as someone
> else may have needed it and packaged it up so it will install in
> stable.
This is a much saner approach to the "I would like newer codecs/web
browser/a funky new version of something".
--
----------( "Wind the frog!" )----------
----------( )----------
Simon ----( )---- Nomis
Htag.pl 0.0.24
--
Please post to: Hampshire@mailman.lug.org.uk
Web Interface: https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/hampshire
LUG URL: http://www.hantslug.org.uk
--------------------------------------------------------------
