Is there a faster distro in producing updated packages?

luigi · 2004-07-07 15:57:56

First off, I've been using Arch for a week and I've been thoroughly impressed. The community isn't nearly as big as Gentoo, but the documentation on the Wiki and these forums is great. And of course pacman rocks.

I've been even more impressed at how fast new packages get built into pacman packages and put in current. I don't think Gentoo ebuilds have that quick of a turnaround. Is there any other distro out there that rivals Arch in terms of getting updated packages to the official repos?

dp · 2004-07-07 16:08:15

luigi wrote:

First off, I've been using Arch for a week and I've been thoroughly impressed. The community isn't nearly as big as Gentoo, but the documentation on the Wiki and these forums is great. And of course pacman rocks.
I've been even more impressed at how fast new packages get built into pacman packages and put in current. I don't think Gentoo ebuilds have that quick of a turnaround. Is there any other distro out there that rivals Arch in terms of getting updated packages to the official repos?

no

(and if you find one, let me know, so that i can change :-) ;-) )

wdemoss · 2004-07-07 16:20:22

dp wrote:

no
(and if you find one, let me know, so that i can change :-) ;-) )

You wouldn't change.

dp · 2004-07-07 16:52:21

wdemoss wrote:

dp wrote:
no
(and if you find one, let me know, so that i can change :-) ;-) )
You wouldn't change.

what makes you so sure?

no i wouldn't change only because of this, but if other features come in addition, then thinking about will start

BUT: i really don't know any other distro with such a high turnover of pkgs and all these [+] with so less [-] :-)

sarah31 · 2004-07-07 17:41:54

i don't know if arch is the fastest at updating package or not. it really depends on who the maintainer is. i think it is on par to maybe slightly ahead of some of the competition. you could find plenty of users out there that think that often maintainers are a bit wreckless in rushing some packages out.

Dusty · 2004-07-07 18:22:21

It depends how many maintainers are on vacation too. :-D

luigi · 2004-07-07 18:27:51

How many maintainers are there? For, let's say, just the current and extras repositories.

Abaddon · 2004-07-07 18:38:26

In FreeBSD ports are updated very quick :]

Dusty · 2004-07-07 19:13:14

http://www.archlinux.org/people.php

wdemoss · 2004-07-07 20:46:07

dp wrote:

wdemoss wrote:
dp wrote:
no
(and if you find one, let me know, so that i can change :-) ;-) )
You wouldn't change.
what makes you so sure?
no i wouldn't change only because of this, but if other features come in addition, then thinking about will start
BUT: i really don't know any other distro with such a high turnover of pkgs and all these [+] with so less [-] :-)

I was just kidding. I assume you use arch for the same reason I do. Its the best linux distrobution I have ever tried. If I came across a better distro, I would switch too.

-wd

Egil.B · 2004-07-07 22:20:40

Abaddon wrote:

In FreeBSD ports are updated very quick :]

ports, ebuilds and such are easier to mantain than binaries.

Dusty · 2004-07-07 23:04:31

Egil.B wrote:

ports, ebuilds and such are easier to mantain than binaries.

Depends whose side you're on. PKGBUILD is like a port or ebuild, if I'm not mistaken. It's easier to maintain for the person maintaining the package. However pacman packages are easier to use for the end user.

Sweeping statements never cover much.

Dusty

jak · 2004-07-08 01:55:31

sarah31 wrote:

maintainers are a bit wreckless in rushing some packages

Gentoo was too slow in marking packages stable, for my taste.

With arch, I set up a build environment to compile everything from souce. When pacman wants to update packages, I cancel the update, run abs, refresh my build environment, compile from source, and install using my local package. That way, pacman is satisfied by my local update. Most things that compile OK, usually run OK too, so compiling from source is an early warning system to help avoid problems.

Haakon · 2004-07-08 02:00:44

jak wrote:

With arch, I set up a build environment to compile everything from souce. When pacman wants to update packages, I cancel the update, run abs, refresh my build environment, compile from source, and install using my local package.

Sorry, but ... why?

Xentac · 2004-07-08 02:19:04

jak wrote:

sarah31 wrote:
maintainers are a bit wreckless in rushing some packages
Gentoo was too slow in marking packages stable, for my taste.
With arch, I set up a build environment to compile everything from souce. When pacman wants to update packages, I cancel the update, run abs, refresh my build environment, compile from source, and install using my local package. That way, pacman is satisfied by my local update. Most things that compile OK, usually run OK too, so compiling from source is an early warning system to help avoid problems.

Wouldn't it be easier to just type 'srcpac -Syu'?

sarah31 · 2004-07-08 05:05:12

it would but some people just like to make life difficult. may as just use gentoo or crux iff you want to do it the otherway

dp · 2004-07-08 09:35:59

Xentac wrote:

jak wrote:
sarah31 wrote:
maintainers are a bit wreckless in rushing some packages
Gentoo was too slow in marking packages stable, for my taste.
With arch, I set up a build environment to compile everything from souce. When pacman wants to update packages, I cancel the update, run abs, refresh my build environment, compile from source, and install using my local package. That way, pacman is satisfied by my local update. Most things that compile OK, usually run OK too, so compiling from source is an early warning system to help avoid problems.
Wouldn't it be easier to just type 'srcpac -Syu'?

yes, of course it would --- God of srcpac, please enhance the docs for srcpac that people know what it is about and how to use, so that people can use the power of archoo (archoo: "an highly inofficial clone of gentoo functionability for arch", aka srcpac)

PS
excellent idea with srcpac!!

Egil.B · 2004-07-08 12:34:16

Dusty wrote:

Egil.B wrote:
ports, ebuilds and such are easier to mantain than binaries.
Depends whose side you're on.
Dusty

I ment for the mantainer. Updating an ebuild for kde is a fast task. Building and uploading as well, on the other hand, takes a bit more time.

dp · 2004-07-08 13:52:23

Egil.B wrote:

Dusty wrote:
Egil.B wrote:
ports, ebuilds and such are easier to mantain than binaries.
Depends whose side you're on.
Dusty
I ment for the mantainer. Updating an ebuild for kde is a fast task. Building and uploading as well, on the other hand, takes a bit more time.

yes ... a bit tib a ... sey

Dusty · 2004-07-08 15:44:30

Egil.B wrote:

I ment for the mantainer. Updating an ebuild for kde is a fast task. Building and uploading as well, on the other hand, takes a bit more time.

Hmmm... I would suspect the maintainer has to build the package to make sure it works, or it might be no good. So that time is used regardless. Now if he spends the extra time it takes to upload that binary, it means a lot of users don't have to go through the trouble of compiling it... the total amount of time saved is greater. 8)

Dusty

xerxes2 · 2004-07-08 18:23:13

exactly Dusty, fast is not always good. Wait a few days and get a working binary is better than the maintainer throws up one that suck and ends up doing more versions after there been some loudmouthing in the forum.

jak · 2004-07-08 22:54:19

Xentac wrote:

jak wrote:
With arch, I set up a build environment to compile everything from souce
Wouldn't it be easier to just type 'srcpac -Syu'?

Sometimes I don't agree with the configure options; some packages I patch the source code for my own local reasons; etc.

Using a vanilla, unpatched distro seems strange to me. I don't know how anyone can tolerate it.

zeppelin · 2004-07-08 23:02:25

jak wrote:

Using a vanilla, unpatched distro seems strange to me. I don't know how anyone can tolerate it.

what? the patching and patching and patching can make you sick sometimes. If you want extra-super-wow! security then just stick with OpenBSD or Debian Stable.

I can tolerate using ArchLinux (in fact I love it), because I know what's the main purpose of ArchLinux.
you should read the about page again I think

Xentac · 2004-07-09 01:29:38

jak wrote:

Xentac wrote:
jak wrote:
With arch, I set up a build environment to compile everything from souce
Wouldn't it be easier to just type 'srcpac -Syu'?
Sometimes I don't agree with the configure options; some packages I patch the source code for my own local reasons; etc.
Using a vanilla, unpatched distro seems strange to me. I don't know how anyone can tolerate it.

Is that rock comfortable? Didn't you know that srcpac can do custom configuration?

sarah31 · 2004-07-09 05:24:45

jak wrote:

Sometimes I don't agree with the configure options; some packages I patch the source code for my own local reasons; etc.
Using a vanilla, unpatched distro seems strange to me. I don't know how anyone can tolerate it.

you should read about srcpac. it is a better tool than using makepkg and editing builds.

as for patching. to each there own. as far as i am concerned about the most useful patching i found was to patch source to allow packages to be built. i don't use kernel patches myself because i tenth of a second is not that valuable.

editing configure options on the other hand .... that i would agree with but that is not patching.

Arch Linux

#1 2004-07-07 15:57:56

Is there a faster distro in producing updated packages?

#2 2004-07-07 16:08:15

Re: Is there a faster distro in producing updated packages?

#3 2004-07-07 16:20:22

Re: Is there a faster distro in producing updated packages?

#4 2004-07-07 16:52:21

Re: Is there a faster distro in producing updated packages?

#5 2004-07-07 17:41:54

Re: Is there a faster distro in producing updated packages?

#6 2004-07-07 18:22:21

Re: Is there a faster distro in producing updated packages?

#7 2004-07-07 18:27:51

Re: Is there a faster distro in producing updated packages?

#8 2004-07-07 18:38:26

Re: Is there a faster distro in producing updated packages?

#9 2004-07-07 19:13:14

Re: Is there a faster distro in producing updated packages?

#10 2004-07-07 20:46:07

Re: Is there a faster distro in producing updated packages?

#11 2004-07-07 22:20:40

Re: Is there a faster distro in producing updated packages?

#12 2004-07-07 23:04:31

Re: Is there a faster distro in producing updated packages?

#13 2004-07-08 01:55:31

Re: Is there a faster distro in producing updated packages?

#14 2004-07-08 02:00:44

Re: Is there a faster distro in producing updated packages?

#15 2004-07-08 02:19:04

Re: Is there a faster distro in producing updated packages?

#16 2004-07-08 05:05:12

Re: Is there a faster distro in producing updated packages?

#17 2004-07-08 09:35:59

Re: Is there a faster distro in producing updated packages?

#18 2004-07-08 12:34:16

Re: Is there a faster distro in producing updated packages?

#19 2004-07-08 13:52:23

Re: Is there a faster distro in producing updated packages?

#20 2004-07-08 15:44:30

Re: Is there a faster distro in producing updated packages?

#21 2004-07-08 18:23:13

Re: Is there a faster distro in producing updated packages?

#22 2004-07-08 22:54:19

Re: Is there a faster distro in producing updated packages?

#23 2004-07-08 23:02:25

Re: Is there a faster distro in producing updated packages?

#24 2004-07-09 01:29:38

Re: Is there a faster distro in producing updated packages?

#25 2004-07-09 05:24:45

Re: Is there a faster distro in producing updated packages?

Board footer