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 at real-time.com> | Phone : (952)943-8700 http://www.real-time.com | Fax : (952)943-8500 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: tclug-list-unsubscribe at mn-linux.org For additional commands, e-mail: tclug-list-help at mn-linux.org