[arch] arch-stable

[Guillermo A. Amaral]

On Monday 11 December 2006 09:21, RedShift wrote:
> Erwin Van de Velde wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I think that Arch will never be the best server distribution:
> > e.g. Moving from PHP 4.x to 5.0 without leaving the older version in the
> > packages surely resulted in problems for a couple of web-based tools.
> > Having a new kernel on an almost weekly basis is not going to help
> > either. In my opinion Arch is meant to be easy, fast and near the edge
> > between development and stable versions, which is why I like it on my
> > laptop.
> > For servers however, a little more stability is likely to be appreciated
> > and so on the servers of our research group, I installed FreeBSD, which
> > combines in my opinion stability and new features in a very good way,
> > even though I am not eager to install it on my laptop due to the
> > compilation times of the ports you install (it is almost like a source
> > based distribution if you update regularly).
> >
> > Most of the time I am not a huge fan of all the different Linux and BSD
> > distributions which differ in some details (e.g. think of all the
> > Ubuntu-based distributions), but I think that there is a clear gap
> > between a server distribution and one for personal use, a gap that cannot
> > be closed just by keeping some older versions in some type of a stable
> > repository. One of the most difficult things will be that you will get a
> > huge amount of packages or that the user will have to start compiling
> > everything anyway (version differences with libraries etc.: apache x.y
> > compiled against lib*** z.u, apache x.y compiled against lib*** z'.u',
> > ...). It does not seem like fun to be creating binaries for all those
> > combinations and who will decide what is stable enough when?
>
> The library problem you are explaining is exactly what I am trying to
> prevent. Let's say for example apache has been updated to 2.2.5, and in
> the meantime zlib was updated too. So apache has been linked to the new
> zlib. Suppose you only want to update apache. This poses a problem
> because it has been linked with the new zlib while the old one is still
> being used on your system. Updating zlib could lead to other problems,
> php was probably linked with zlib too, etc, etc... That's the problem
> I'm trying to overcome with arch-stable.
>
> > This is of course just my 2 cents :-)
> >
> > Greetings,
> > Erwin
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > arch mailing list
> > arch at archlinux.org
> > http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
>
> _______________________________________________
> arch mailing list
> arch at archlinux.org
> http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch

I must agree with Erwin, Although I use Arch on all my servers and routers, I 
don't think there is much of a risk when it comes to a wanky update like that 
bloody PHP since I  test all updates on a local server and fix/update any 
tools or apps I use before I update all remotes, It keeps me on me toes.

When I want to update a single application as RedShift suggested, I just 
compile that package in ABS or via a custom make package file and distribute 
it to all my remote servers and desktops.

In short.. I am not qualified to say if arch-stable might be a good or bad 
move,  during past years with Arch I can honestly say I have had no need for 
stable rep.

Cheers to all,
And to all happy Festivus.
-- 
Guillermo A. Amaral, BCSE
@ site: http://www.guillermoamaral.com/
@ blog: http://blog.guillermoamaral.com/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch/attachments/20061211/903f24a8/attachment.bin