Will arch include conservative server options ever?

mrjohnston · 2005-02-16 04:11:13

Hey,

I have been using arch for a while now on my desktop and its great. Easy to use, up to date packages...wonderful. But lately I have tried to use arch as my server as I grow tired of my existing one but I keep having issues with the server packages being too new.

For example of LOT of php scripts requires php4.x because they simply didn't code them to be php5 compatible. Plus I know a lot of people who simply won't trust something on a server till Its been proven stable for a while. To a lesser degree this can happen with apache (as only 2 is offered by some things still require apache1) and mysql.

My hope in all my rambling is that arch one day as it matures will perhaps run 2 branches on some important servers so people can decide to install for example php (php5.x) or php4. I have seen this in a couple other distros and while I don't se the need to start trying to do everything this way, a couple major servers would be nice to be able to choose between versions, especially when the version number can be crucial to running some programs.

Any thoughts or comments here? Am I crazy, is this simply not arch's focus, or is this just too much too soon but something other people out there experience?

mrjohnston

cactus · 2005-02-16 04:19:34

Arch is built in such a way that it is quite easy to house your own repository. You can have things be as stable, aged, and well tested as you would like them to be.

I believe there are php4 packages floating around in numerous people's repositories, as well as links to it on the forums. At least, there used to be at any rate. There is also an option in php.ini that forces greater backwards compatability for php5 with regard to php4. I don't use it, but I have heard tell it often works well enough to trick the server goblins.

Oh, by the way...put on your asbestos suit..cuz this has been talked to death, and people may attempt to throw burning rags on you.

lanrat · 2005-02-16 10:10:32

One way to do it is to use arch cvs to get older pkgbuild for php4 and build the package using abs (and add ignorepkg = php to /etc/pacman.conf).

http://cvs.archlinux.org/cgi-bin/viewcv … p/PKGBUILD

I think revision 1.43 is the last php 4 version.

mrjohnston · 2005-02-16 10:51:26

I guess people don't get my rationale that if you want to be a serious server distro you don't tell people to find it elsewhere, or not have those packages in the main repositories. Thats just not what most companies or major hosts would go for to trust, and I am not only talking about php! What happens if postfix goes to 3.0 and its major and break compatibility (just a scenario!)
My whole point is that arch doesn't seem to cater to the server, and especially to the serious server crowd. I was just wondering if that was ever going to change or not.
I believe my official answer is "or not".
Thats all I was looking for then.

mrjohnston

i3839 · 2005-02-16 15:06:52

Part of the problem is that it takes a lot of time and work to find out which package versions are stable. Before you're sure that a package is stable you're some years further, missed a bunch security releases too if you're unlucky (which often must be backported). Point is, we may laugh at Debian stable, but it has it's purpose.

If you want a stable branch for Arch, then gather some people together and start maintaining it. The infrastructure is there, nothing has to change to support what you want, only manpower is missing.

phrakture · 2005-02-16 16:05:57

mrjohnston wrote:

My whole point is that arch doesn't seem to cater to the server, and especially to the serious server crowd. I was just wondering if that was ever going to change or not.
I believe my official answer is "or not".
Thats all I was looking for then.
mrjohnston

sigh... yet another who doesn't read the "about" pages... I'll paraphrase

me wrote:

...this distro was created by Judd to satisfy *his* needs... it's for him and he doesn't give a crap if other people like it... it's perfect for him...

Another nice little fact is that, if you're competent, you can run a server on anything you want... if you don't know what's going on, then use RH, because you can get support...

I'll wager that there are at least 10-20 people on this board who can take a "enterprise" grade server... RH, Debian, Arch, whatever... that has just had some big major crash, and get it up and going in under half an hour...

Companies need to stop hiring the mediocre... I'm tired of having to carry extra weight because the other jokers I work with are just ordinary.... you want a good, reliable server? Hire someone who knows their crap and stop trying to find something that will do it for you...

*tyrade hat off*

Dusty · 2005-02-16 16:19:12

Arch was designed as a desktop distro. Its suitability for the server market is amazing, considering that it wasn't designed as such.

The chances of official support for a stable repository any time in the near future are pretty much nil. It takes more resources and manpower than the dev team has, as i3839 pointed out.

There have been various people working on unofficial versions, but to the best of my knowledge, nobody's stuck it out. Its tedious unrewarding work... I suspect most people that need older software are building it with ABS; this is the way Arch was designed, and it works quite well.

Dusty

phrakture · 2005-02-16 16:22:16

anyway, couldn't you just stick with current, and manually upgrade when there's a security patch (or are those propigated to current?)

sarah31 · 2005-02-16 16:37:12

The thing is that Arch is not aspiring to be a server distro and the current rolling release structure does not lend well to supporting a stable and current branch. I know many people ask about this or request it but it is just not doable right now. Regardless of how much better one may think it would be to have a stable branch there are always problems with such repos as well.

I have a problem with the idea of patching and repatching a "stable" package in that if you just keep patching I don't even know how one can consider it stable. You are also stressing the other repos too because in order to maintain these older packages you may have to patch other base packages or keep older base packages around. The older the code gets the more vulnerable it is and the further out of sync it gets with new code standards and more likely you will have to keep old version of things like GCC around.

Like someone mentioned earlier it is far better to have someone competent to maintain a server. Someone who can change with the times and adapt the existing scripts or whatever to comply with the new standards.

No package will ever be completely secure and it is a fallicy to think that older will always be more stable. Code is only as stable as the person who writes it makes it. If they know their stuff then few vulnerabilities will ever be found and exploited.

Arch Linux

#1 2005-02-16 04:11:13

Will arch include conservative server options ever?

#2 2005-02-16 04:19:34

Re: Will arch include conservative server options ever?

#3 2005-02-16 10:10:32

Re: Will arch include conservative server options ever?

#4 2005-02-16 10:51:26

Re: Will arch include conservative server options ever?

#5 2005-02-16 15:06:52

Re: Will arch include conservative server options ever?

#6 2005-02-16 16:05:57

Re: Will arch include conservative server options ever?

#7 2005-02-16 16:19:12

Re: Will arch include conservative server options ever?

#8 2005-02-16 16:22:16

Re: Will arch include conservative server options ever?

#9 2005-02-16 16:37:12

Re: Will arch include conservative server options ever?

Board footer