You are not logged in.

#26 2012-04-14 06:23:46

tonythed
Member
Registered: 2010-07-06
Posts: 9

Re: Upgrade Show Stoppers... Lately

sitquietly wrote:

It seems to me that you yourself have given us the proof that Archlinux is risky. smile
...
What I've been noticing as well as the "show stoppers lately" is that more and more guys seem to be installing Arch and NOT accepting that it is a testing distro which is only appropriate for linux experts.  Have you noticed that there's a lot of whining in the forum?  A lot of users seem to expect their problems to be fixed by someone other than themselves.

I did say "more risky than normal" which implied some constant level of risk. What I look for in a distro is a package manager that makes actual sense which is why I use arch/pacman.. it seems to do that better than most these days. What I hate to see happen to a distro is for the developers to decide that dangling by a thread over the bleeding edge is an important goal.. rather than just operating close to the bleeding edge with a safety margin between. There is no need for a stable repository to be at high risk, just keep the software in testing long enough to be tested to a point where the risk is low enough to allow the software to be useful in important applications. Anyway, my best wishes and thanks go to the Arch developers for their works and excellent disto.

Offline

#27 2012-04-16 01:08:21

ngoonee
Forum Fellow
From: Between Thailand and Singapore
Registered: 2009-03-17
Posts: 6,838

Re: Upgrade Show Stoppers... Lately

tonythed wrote:
sitquietly wrote:

It seems to me that you yourself have given us the proof that Archlinux is risky. smile
...
What I've been noticing as well as the "show stoppers lately" is that more and more guys seem to be installing Arch and NOT accepting that it is a testing distro which is only appropriate for linux experts.  Have you noticed that there's a lot of whining in the forum?  A lot of users seem to expect their problems to be fixed by someone other than themselves.

I did say "more risky than normal" which implied some constant level of risk. What I look for in a distro is a package manager that makes actual sense which is why I use arch/pacman.. it seems to do that better than most these days. What I hate to see happen to a distro is for the developers to decide that dangling by a thread over the bleeding edge is an important goal.. rather than just operating close to the bleeding edge with a safety margin between. There is no need for a stable repository to be at high risk, just keep the software in testing long enough to be tested to a point where the risk is low enough to allow the software to be useful in important applications. Anyway, my best wishes and thanks go to the Arch developers for their works and excellent disto.

You misunderstand the use of [testing]. Refer here

[core], [extra], and [community] are not 'stable' in the sense you're thinking of (which is - my business can depend on this). The packages there are only guaranteed not to cause system breakage on systems which match the ones which use [testing] (devs and other users). That's how Arch runs, nothing is kept in [testing] any longer than strictly necessary.


Allan-Volunteer on the (topic being discussed) mailn lists. You never get the people who matters attention on the forums.
jasonwryan-Installing Arch is a measure of your literacy. Maintaining Arch is a measure of your diligence. Contributing to Arch is a measure of your competence.
Griemak-Bleeding edge, not bleeding flat. Edge denotes falls will occur from time to time. Bring your own parachute.

Offline

#28 2012-04-16 15:14:19

stefanwilkens
Member
From: Enschede, the Netherlands
Registered: 2008-12-10
Posts: 624

Re: Upgrade Show Stoppers... Lately

The Linux user knows no show stoppers, only quirks to fill a weekend with smile

Sorry to hear that you've been experiencing bumps in the road, but this should act as a motivant rather than other.

I've just pulled 5 months of updates, a very big no-no in rolling release land, which all applied without issue. I recall more update breaking in our past, surely.

Last edited by stefanwilkens (2012-04-16 15:17:15)


Arch i686 on Phenom X4 | GTX760

Offline

#29 2012-04-18 04:57:26

tonythed
Member
Registered: 2010-07-06
Posts: 9

Re: Upgrade Show Stoppers... Lately

ngoonee wrote:
tonythed wrote:
sitquietly wrote:

It seems to me that you yourself have given us the proof that Archlinux is risky. smile
...
What I've been noticing as well as the "show stoppers lately" is that more and more guys seem to be installing Arch and NOT accepting that it is a testing distro which is only appropriate for linux experts.  Have you noticed that there's a lot of whining in the forum?  A lot of users seem to expect their problems to be fixed by someone other than themselves.

I did say "more risky than normal" which implied some constant level of risk. What I look for in a distro is a package manager that makes actual sense which is why I use arch/pacman.. it seems to do that better than most these days. What I hate to see happen to a distro is for the developers to decide that dangling by a thread over the bleeding edge is an important goal.. rather than just operating close to the bleeding edge with a safety margin between. There is no need for a stable repository to be at high risk, just keep the software in testing long enough to be tested to a point where the risk is low enough to allow the software to be useful in important applications. Anyway, my best wishes and thanks go to the Arch developers for their works and excellent disto.

You misunderstand the use of [testing]. Refer here

[core], [extra], and [community] are not 'stable' in the sense you're thinking of (which is - my business can depend on this). The packages there are only guaranteed not to cause system breakage on systems which match the ones which use [testing] (devs and other users). That's how Arch runs, nothing is kept in [testing] any longer than strictly necessary.

Doesn't your last paragraph contain an oxymoron? Breakage protection is guaranteed only for the particular hardware used in testing.. so wouldn't it be a logical assumption that the longer the packages stay in testing the more opportunity they will have to be ran on varied and numerous hardware.. and therefore less likely to break when moved to core and extra? This assumes there are growing amounts of users on the testing repo and that their needs require using more and different packages as time progresses. Or are the users on the testing repo pretty much static in package needs and number? I wouldn't think so, but I don't really know either way.

Offline

#30 2012-04-18 06:42:44

ngoonee
Forum Fellow
From: Between Thailand and Singapore
Registered: 2009-03-17
Posts: 6,838

Re: Upgrade Show Stoppers... Lately

tonythed wrote:
ngoonee wrote:
tonythed wrote:

I did say "more risky than normal" which implied some constant level of risk. What I look for in a distro is a package manager that makes actual sense which is why I use arch/pacman.. it seems to do that better than most these days. What I hate to see happen to a distro is for the developers to decide that dangling by a thread over the bleeding edge is an important goal.. rather than just operating close to the bleeding edge with a safety margin between. There is no need for a stable repository to be at high risk, just keep the software in testing long enough to be tested to a point where the risk is low enough to allow the software to be useful in important applications. Anyway, my best wishes and thanks go to the Arch developers for their works and excellent disto.

You misunderstand the use of [testing]. Refer here

[core], [extra], and [community] are not 'stable' in the sense you're thinking of (which is - my business can depend on this). The packages there are only guaranteed not to cause system breakage on systems which match the ones which use [testing] (devs and other users). That's how Arch runs, nothing is kept in [testing] any longer than strictly necessary.

Doesn't your last paragraph contain an oxymoron? Breakage protection is guaranteed only for the particular hardware used in testing.. so wouldn't it be a logical assumption that the longer the packages stay in testing the more opportunity they will have to be ran on varied and numerous hardware.. and therefore less likely to break when moved to core and extra? This assumes there are growing amounts of users on the testing repo and that their needs require using more and different packages as time progresses. Or are the users on the testing repo pretty much static in package needs and number? I wouldn't think so, but I don't really know either way.

There IS no 'breakage protection' per se, and [testing] users normally update fairly regularly. You seem to be suggesting leaving packages in [testing] for extended periods of time (weeks?) which is unreasonable since dependencies and various general libraries would quickly make things unworkable.

Some packages ARE left for a longer time, but that's mostly because its known that it could potentially cause serious harm if there's a problem. In general though, once a package has been in [testing] for a full 2 days there's unlikely to be any further problems from [testing] users (in my experience).


Allan-Volunteer on the (topic being discussed) mailn lists. You never get the people who matters attention on the forums.
jasonwryan-Installing Arch is a measure of your literacy. Maintaining Arch is a measure of your diligence. Contributing to Arch is a measure of your competence.
Griemak-Bleeding edge, not bleeding flat. Edge denotes falls will occur from time to time. Bring your own parachute.

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB