FWIW, I run woody + bunk-{1,2} backports plus a very selective few
backports.org backports. And then I have a fair number of backports I've
done myself. And download.kde.org :-)
> that's fine and it may work well for you, but telling yourself that it is
> still 'stable' (or even that it is any m
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 10:01:58AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> Well, I'm also a debian developer, and I run stable on all my
> machines, with the exception of my development machine. (And use some
> backports from backports.org, namely spamassassin, clamav etc.)
Ditto for all my servers. I h
* Craig Sanders ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040721 05:55]:
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 09:41:54AM +0200, Philipp wrote:
> > 2) unstable is, as the debian developers put it, unstable.
>
> some do. most don't. in fact, most debian developers run unstable on most or
> all of their machines. i'm a debian d
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 09:41:54AM +0200, Philipp wrote:
> first, thank you for you long and comprehensive answer, but we wont use
> unstable.
they're your servers, so your choice. i wasn't telling you what you should do,
i was informing you that there was another very viable alternative and that
Hi Craig,
> > 1) Are you using unofficial repositories on production servers ?
>
> no, i run unstable on several dozen production servers without a problem.
i
> find that doing that is an excellent way of both keeping software
up-to-date
> and also keeping several months ahead of the script-kiddie
5 matches
Mail list logo
