You are not logged in.
I know, I know, Arch generally is fantastic as a server distro (hell! I use it myself). But the rolling release makes it a nightmare to look after (2.6.30 really screwed up with my raid configuration with mkinitcpio). Down time isn't majorly critical to me, but no doubt for some it really is.
What I propose is server distro based on arch without a rolling release system (I know static repo's have been discussed before). Something we can run for maybe 5 years without having to worry about major version upgrades crippling the systen (yes, I hear you go and use Debian or Ubuntu server, but I struggle with anything that is not pacman now)
I know Arch is about `implement it yourself you moron, don't just moan about it` but I do not really have the knowledge to get a distro off the ground on my own. Early thoughts would be a snapshot of core and extra, remove all gui and x related apps then concentrate on updating packages that had security concerns for 5 years. Anyone interested in helping? pointing me in the right direction etc?
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
I think it would be a good move for Arch server users, opinions?
Last edited by gazj (2009-06-27 14:26:33)
Offline
This is the closest anybody ever got to doing this:
http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_Linux_Stable
Offline
I knew something like this had been discussed. Thanks Allan. My idea is to strip out as many non server type packages as possible therefore making the prjoect more managable for a smaller amount of contributors.
Offline
I would recommend the "configure-yourself-the-kernel" method for a server distro. It's a package too sensitive for not takng this approach.
In love I believe and in Linux I trust
Offline
You don't need a new distro, just an alternative repo or two. Build the packages you want, put then online somewhere in repo format, and point your pacman.conf at it. You can call it [stable]... or maybe [boring].
Offline
Maybe Arch without the rolling release does not work. All projects trying to implement some kind of stable repositories based on Arch failed.
Offline
You don't need a new distro, just an alternative repo or two. Build the packages you want, put then online somewhere in repo format, and point your pacman.conf at it. You can call it [stable]... or maybe [boring].
This is what I've been trying to do, but I'm struggling to decide the best way to handle conflicts / dependencies... If I want to compile a custom version of openssh for example, I have 2 options:
1) Leave it named 'openssh' in which case it will be overwritten by the next update to the official openssh (undesired behaviour) OR the openssh in my custom repo.
2) Rename it to 'openssh-custom' (for example) and add a 'provides' line to the PKGBUILD. If I then install a package that depends on openssh, it could select either the real 'openssh' package from 'core', or the custom openssh package (which 'provides' openssh) from my custom repo. But how do I control which repo it pulls it from?
Ideally, I just want to overlay a repo with custom packages to replace *some* packages in the official repos...
Are you familiar with our Forum Rules, and How To Ask Questions The Smart Way?
BlueHackers // fscanary // resticctl
Offline
fukawi just make sure when u build tha package u type a really high version, so it will always be greater than whatever the next "real" version is.
Offline
That's another options I hadn't thought of... Perhaps Multiply the version number by 10 or 100 so I can still keep track of what the real version is... hmmm, thanks darthaxul.
Are you familiar with our Forum Rules, and How To Ask Questions The Smart Way?
BlueHackers // fscanary // resticctl
Offline
Well, if you want the effect of using Debian I'm sure you could just not update? Since in my experience they tend not to push updates unless they're 'critical', and if the update is 'critical' i'm sure you'll see it mentioned all over the place and can manually deal with it when needed.
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
tomk wrote:You don't need a new distro, just an alternative repo or two. Build the packages you want, put then online somewhere in repo format, and point your pacman.conf at it. You can call it [stable]... or maybe [boring].
This is what I've been trying to do, but I'm struggling to decide the best way to handle conflicts / dependencies... If I want to compile a custom version of openssh for example, I have 2 options:
1) Leave it named 'openssh' in which case it will be overwritten by the next update to the official openssh (undesired behaviour) OR the openssh in my custom repo.
2) Rename it to 'openssh-custom' (for example) and add a 'provides' line to the PKGBUILD. If I then install a package that depends on openssh, it could select either the real 'openssh' package from 'core', or the custom openssh package (which 'provides' openssh) from my custom repo. But how do I control which repo it pulls it from?
Ideally, I just want to overlay a repo with custom packages to replace *some* packages in the official repos...
If you leave the name as openssh, and put your mirror at the TOP of pacman.conf, it will not be overwritten. pacman recognises the order of the repositories.
For example, if you'd like the latest netcfg (hint hint), uncomment [testing] at the end of your pacman.conf, and then do pacman -S testing/netcfg. This will not upgrade your system with testing packages on the next Syu as it is a lower priority than [core]/[extra].
Offline
If you leave the name as openssh, and put your mirror at the TOP of pacman.conf, it will not be overwritten. pacman recognises the order of the repositories.
I suspected that may be the case, but haven't had a way to prove it... Thanks
</hi-jack>
Are you familiar with our Forum Rules, and How To Ask Questions The Smart Way?
BlueHackers // fscanary // resticctl
Offline
Ok I have made a stable repo
[server-stable]
http://www.foxjames.co.uk/linux/server/stable
This is the easy bit though. Keeping up with security updates for all theese packages, how would I go about it? (surely I haven't got to track every project website manually, how do the arch devs do this) So far I only have the packages on my server any suggestions for other services and there dependencies are welcome.
Anyone who is willing to take on some packages please let me know. Already there are 140 packages :S, geez that sounds like a lot of work. If we can get enough to look after maybe 20 packages each I think it may be sustainable.
Any thoughts, suggestions or constructive crititsims are welcome
Offline
freshmeat perhaps?
I'm happy to mirror for you if you want/need.
Are you familiar with our Forum Rules, and How To Ask Questions The Smart Way?
BlueHackers // fscanary // resticctl
Offline
you are very welcome to mirror. I'll shall set up some sort of rsync access shortly. I doubt any one is really using it but another mirror can only help take the strain of my small pipe. Thanks
Offline
Shoot me an e-mail with how you wanna do it
Are you familiar with our Forum Rules, and How To Ask Questions The Smart Way?
BlueHackers // fscanary // resticctl
Offline
so what about the x64 bit servers and packages, seems like if any wanted to run a server it most definitely should be x64 now-days?
Offline
I'm using arch on my server and so far I had no problems, because I wrote a script that reads the arch news for me and updates arch every hour while not updating any packages which are referenced in the news. It will also send you an email a day containing everything it has done in a compressed fashion. I called it
"safepac"
You can get it here (with detailed instructions on how to use it):
Offline
How hard would it be to do the same for desktop usage? Stable release every 6 months and then do only security and patch updates?
Offline
How hard would it be to do the same for desktop usage? Stable release every 6 months and then do only security and patch updates?
Easy, install Fedora/Ubuntu...
Offline
How hard would it be to do the same for desktop usage? Stable release every 6 months and then do only security and patch updates?
Thr rolling release works fine in desktop usage. It's only critical servers where major updates can cause headache.
Offline
Easy, install Fedora/Ubuntu...
+1, I would use Debian/FreeBSD if I was really frantic about stability.
Would also save you all the trouble you are going through.. not worth it in my opinion.
Offline
What's wrong with CentOS or Debian stable for server usage? I mean servers which do have to be online and 100% working with little or no effort.
I'm a diehard Archer, but I would not use it on a production server, unless I had plenty of time to spare fixing things...
Microshaft delenda est
Offline
Allan wrote:Easy, install Fedora/Ubuntu...
+1, I would use Debian/FreeBSD if I was really frantic about stability.
Would also save you all the trouble you are going through.. not worth it in my opinion.
I hear you. This is already a great deal of work on my own. Maybe looking to repackage slackware with pacman at it's heart would be easier then I could just follow the slackware security issue's to keep packages up to date and maybe make it i686 while at it. Not sure how hard this would be, but I think it may be worth looking into.
Offline
My first arch post! Hi
I think arch server is a great idea! Those who fear updates...
1) dont update until 100% sure you want to
2) In any serious server environment that fears downtime, there ae usually daily incremential backups
and weekly/monthly full backups.... (rdiff-backup, rsynic, dd etc are nice and friendly tools). Backup before you update,
and update on weekends where you usually have more time to recover things if something goes bad.
3) A test environment for updates (virtual machines, user mode linux, separate boxes ...)
all of the above mitigates the risks to an acceptable level i think.
4) Updates are usually a must (i.e.: samba fileservers + vista difficulties: even using XP's synctoy, vista couldnt synchronize to samba; a major problem for which there's STILL (!) no update/backport for Ubuntu 8.04 Hardy Heron LTS server.... another example would be the new openssh version which provides with chroot... a useful addition if you want to use WinSCP for windows clients and provide them with safe access to their files while on the go...)
What I imagine as a stable arch version is not so much frozen repositories but checked and dublechecked and triplechecked packages that don't mess things up.
This being the case, this would be more of a "safe" repository where you could be more confident about things not braking after an update...
Thus the need for a separate distro or anything is unnecessery... I think all we would need is to get a crowd that focuses on verifying updates for common server packages as "safe".
If the packages arent safe... skip the update... wait until they are safe...
Those who can afford the time and resources for fixing packages can do so, and those who want a server like arch can waddle forth at the back of the line, avoiding any unforseen difficulties.
Besides, servers are more or less generic about the software they most often run... bind, iptables, apache, samba, postfix etc...
These are the packages that get the serious computing crowd into the whole linux game and usually fare well on their own... but need people to test to speed development.
I suggest piggybacking on that and doing our part for everyone.... the developers, the users and eachother as server users.
Well.. just my 5 cents, you have my support!
Offline