> On Mon,25.Aug.08, 11:59:26, Ernie Dunbar wrote:
>
>> No... at worst I'm using Etch already. All I'm doing is using the
>> "unstable" distribution for apt, with this as my sources.list:
>>
>> deb http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ unstable contrib main non-free
>
> Can you please show the output of 'apt-cache policy debianutils'?
> According to packages.debian.org 2.8.4 was sarge, etch has 2.17
>
> (and didn't your mother tell you not to run unstable on a production
> server :))
On our ns2:
# apt-cache policy debianutils
debianutils:
Installed: 2.8.4
Candidate: 2.8.4
Version Table:
*** 2.8.4 0
100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
And on our ns1:
# apt-cache policy debianutils
debianutils:
Installed: 2.30
Candidate: 2.30
Version table:
*** 2.30 0
500 http://ftp.us.debian.org unstable/main Packages
100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
I could swear that I upgraded to Etch on our ns2 a while ago, but maybe it
hasn't been done. It's definitely done on the rest of our debian systems,
as the `apt-cache policy debianutils` shows 2.30, just like on ns1.
As for running 'unstable' on production servers, I prefer to have
production servers with quick security updates, thank you very much. :)
And besides, we've had significantly less downtime since switching to
Debian and its 'apt-get upgrade's. 'Unstable' on Debian makes our old
"stable" servers look terribly more unstable.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
