Nick Jennings wrote:
This brings up a question I have. Isn't testing technically the *last*
of stable/testing/unstable to get security fixes?
Correct.
security fixes for stable are packported immediately, and the fixes are
also incorporated into unstable asap. Now for testing, there would be
This brings up a question I have. Isn't testing technically the *last*
of stable/testing/unstable to get security fixes?
security fixes for stable are packported immediately, and the fixes are
also incorporated into unstable asap. Now for testing, there would be
at least a delay of a week for it
quote who=Jason Lim
Anyway, thats our take on it... and its never failed us so far. Takes
quite a bit of effort though... so watch out.
Just to chime in, we use stable only, with quite a few backports. [1] Often
enough there's a package I'd really like - right now it's a fresh postfix -
but I
On Fri, Nov 09, 2001 at 03:32:29AM +1100, Jason Lim wrote:
We run unstable on our production servers. That means we must be very
vigilant in making sure no one else has had a problem. We download
the updates, and install them a day or two later after other people
have tested it and made sure
On Sun, Nov 11, 2001 at 10:30:56AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
On Fri, Nov 09, 2001 at 03:32:29AM +1100, Jason Lim wrote:
We run unstable on our production servers. That means we must be very
vigilant in making sure no one else has had a problem. We download
the updates, and install them a
You just don't know what you're missing...
till you run unstable.
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2001 1:09 PM
Subject: Re: stable vs testing
On Sun, Nov 11, 2001 at 10:30:56AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
On Fri, Nov 09
On Fri, Nov 09, 2001 at 03:32:29AM +1100, Jason Lim wrote:
We run unstable on our production servers. That means we must be very
vigilant in making sure no one else has had a problem. We download
the updates, and install them a day or two later after other people
have tested it and made sure
You just don't know what you're missing...
till you run unstable.
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: debian-isp@lists.debian.org
Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2001 1:09 PM
Subject: Re: stable vs testing
On Sun, Nov 11, 2001 at 10:30:56AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote
Title: RE: stable vs testing
I have two boxes running testing, and they rock!! But If you plan to use the box for production, I always recommend you the stable.think on security issues in the future.
Un saludo.
-Mensaje original-
De: Glenn Hocking [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED
Glenn Hocking wrote:
My question is what other experiences have others have running
testing/unstable in a live environment with regards to both security and
stability.
I use ONLY testing/unstable. Had never any problems with woody. I use
widely known software like apache, bind, postfix so
On Thu, 8 Nov 2001, Glenn Hocking wrote:
My question is what other experiences have others have running
testing/unstable in a live environment with regards to both security and
stability.
unstable is very much a trust this and die environment.
NOT recommended for a critically live
11 matches
Mail list logo
