You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
Would Arch "testing" compare to Debian Sid? Or would it be even more stable?
Thanks.
Regards, Joe
Offline
well arch is kinda known for bleeding edge which means something from testing might bork your box, if so as long as you dont clear your cache you could revert back to an older package or comment out testing pacman -Syu will tell you which packages are newer than whats in current & extra .remove those pkgs reinstall them from there will bring you back to whats arch stable
so in other words
GO FOR IT
see if you can bork your box then fix it ITS FUN
lol
Offline
Blah. That's the problem with Arch - it just works, even with all the testing stuff ;-(
Offline
It's pretty stable in my experience. Whereas Debian Unstable (and even Testing) seems to include a lot of CVS stuff, Arch's Testing repo usually just has the latest releases, plus development versions of whatever the devs happen to be working on and occasionally (e.g. right now) things compiled against new libraries. Testing has been known to get slightly broken but that usually doesn't last too long, or become a tremendous issue for desktop users.
Offline
Thanks for all the replies, I upgraded to testing on reading replies here and all went fine.
So far so good, thanks for you thoughts.
Regards, Joe
Offline
You are posting on the "Newbie Corner" forum, which tells me that you do not want to use testing.
Offline
You are posting on the "Newbie Corner" forum, which tells me that you do not want to use testing.
Thank you brain zero.
The only thing from testing I use is the kernel and that particular kernel incorporates mkinitcpio, which is a new system to arch and is still experimental. It can be real easy boot up into an unsuable system if you don't read the wiki on it -and there's already a bug with klibc mounting ext3 as ext2. I'm not saying stay away from it, arch needs testers, but just beware if you don't feel kernel savy.
Offline
You are posting on the "Newbie Corner" forum, which tells me that you do not want to use testing.
I picked this forum due to the nature of the question and the fact that I have only used Arch occasionally. I thought about putting my post in the pacman/upgrade sub-forum, but I did not really have an "issue," only a general question. (and one that can lead to controversy if one is not careful)
If Arch "testing" brings down this partition/distro, I'll be just fine as one of the 3 others (Debian based) distros on this box will do. I have used some sort of *nix since I started with Mark Williams Coherent in the 80s. I think I'll be able to muddle along with the kind assistance of the fine folks who frequent here.
Regards, Joe
Offline
brain0 wrote:You are posting on the "Newbie Corner" forum, which tells me that you do not want to use testing.
Thank you brain zero.
The only thing from testing I use is the kernel and that particular kernel incorporates mkinitcpio, which is a new system to arch and is still experimental. It can be real easy boot up into an unsuable system if you don't read the wiki on it -and there's already a bug with klibc mounting ext3 as ext2. I'm not saying stay away from it, arch needs testers, but just beware if you don't feel kernel savy.
mkinitcpio isn't very tough to handle in my experience. However I hadn't tried it with ext2/ext3... Thanks for mentioning that bug.
Offline
The only thing from testing I use is the kernel and that particular kernel incorporates mkinitcpio, which is a new system to arch and is still experimental. It can be real easy boot up into an unsuable system if you don't read the wiki on it -and there's already a bug with klibc mounting ext3 as ext2. I'm not saying stay away from it, arch needs testers, but just beware if you don't feel kernel savy.
I don't see this bug, ext3 is mounted as ext3 here like it should be. But that is off-topic in this thread.
Offline
Pages: 1