Perhaps once a week or two is the most optimal interval.

I update -current as new updates arrive.

1 members found this post helpful.

My experience is of course only anecdotal but when I started using Current about 30 months ago, I almost immediately installed 3 instances - one I updated once a month or less, another I updated roughly weekly excepting what felt to me a specific update on the primary install, the one I updated more or less daily. They all worked and the only problems I ever ran into were ones I brought on myself and were soon rectified. Slackware Current is different from a Rolling Release, largely due to the "lack" of automated dependency resolution. It is actually a major benefit, even to Current..

2 members found this post helpful.

I agree completely. I maintain a rolling release in a VM and Slackware-current has robust stability; it won't break after an upgrade.

In that case, may I ask why using current instead of stable?

Me too!
I try to solve immediately the problems that appear and if I fail I post on the forum for help.

I used this machine to install Slackware 15.0 64-bit and to learn how to upgrade it to current.
I have other machines to run 15.0 stable and put Slackbuilds of select software on them.

This thread is/can be also for new users as well as old return members ... looking into how often to update their installs for current.
I've never ran current and was wondering was all and didn't see any threads on it. Thanks a lot on the on topic posts by many, they were real helpful advice.

At minimum, every security update assuming that the security flaw affects your system (if system is customized).
Aside from that, it is up to you.
-current is an experimental update so irrelevant of how often you run it, you may or may not encounter some problems.

Every time the release hits the torrents, so I only use the mirrors for sec. patches.
Never used them to upgrade -current, except when it's rc1 or rc2 stage.
But I often compile stuff from current tree if that counts.

Hi there,

as other members have commented it depends on how you use -current.

I am not a developer and I was running -current convinced that having the latest of everything was a better choice however, from personal experience, I can confirm that upgrading -current (at every update/upgrade available) does mess up other 3rd party packages (as they share libraries) and then, depending on the necessity to use those "broken" packaged you may have to spend a lot of time trying to fix them.

For example, on threads that I have started here recently (https://www.linuxquestions.org/quest...de-4175711242/ and https://www.linuxquestions.org/quest...de-4175711931/), the last 3 or 4 -current updates/upgrades messed up the libraries used by packages such as darktable, kmail (not even a 3rd party package) and vlc.

So, I followed the advice to run the latest stable (15.0) version if i wished to upgrade frequently, even though the downgrade itself was non-trivial and lengthy.

Enjoy slacking

Have a system backup, an ordered queue of all 3rd party, a great computer (or a bunch of older ones with icecram) an you're ready to go !

You should update today. You know you want to (there's a shiny new kernel)

2 members found this post helpful.

I can not resist when there's a new kernel...

1 members found this post helpful.

This is what I have been doing for the past several years and it works very well for me. I am aware that a so-called stable version exists but I find little interest in static latching. I go for the Dynamic Quality and don't look back.