Re: [TCLUG:20611] How "unstable" can I be?

[Nate Carlson <natecars@real-time.com>]

On Wed, 23 Aug 2000, Timothy Wilson wrote:
> I'm upgrading to a slightly more powerful server for our school's Web
> server, and I'm trying to decide if I should run Debian's "stable" or
> venture out and run "unstable." Normally I think this would be a relative
> no-brainer, but since I'm developing with Zope, and Zope development moves
> pretty fast these days, I'm finding that I need some stuff in "unstable"
> that's not found in "stable." For example, I really need to run the latest
> PostgreSQL.
> 
> I know that I can selectively upgrade packages, but in the interest of
> keeping this as painless as possible, I'm thinking that it might be easier
> to be "unstable" in this case. This server isn't really running very many
> services: ssh, apache, zope, postfix, proftpd, and Mailman are about it. No
> DNS, NFS, etc. Just C/C++ devel packages and Python really.

In my experience, as long as all the dependencies are met when you do a
apt-get upgrade, you'll be just fine with unstable. IE, if it installs,
it'll work just fine....  (and if the dependencies don't work, try again 
in a few hours)  :)

-- 
Nate Carlson <natecars@real-time.com>   | Phone : (952)943-8700
http://www.real-time.com                | Fax   : (952)943-8500