| 1 |
On 20/08/2013 21:24, Tom Wijsman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 13:19:10 -0500 |
| 3 |
> William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> All, |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> I'm not really sure what the answer to this problem is, so I want to |
| 8 |
>> know what the group thinks about how we can handle it. |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> During the last release of OpenRC, I learned that people *do* run |
| 11 |
>> production servers on ~arch. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> While I don't, and asked it just because of the large amount; it |
| 14 |
> appears from some things lately, and not just OpenRC, that there is a |
| 15 |
> certain group that regards ~arch as some kind of new stable. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> This isn't solely about versions entering ~arch, but also about |
| 18 |
> versions leaving ~arch; as ~ is for testing, people should expect their |
| 19 |
> version to break and they should also expect that they cannot rely on a |
| 20 |
> version remaining in the Portage tree, that's just wrong... |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
As a long time user and citizen of -user I can tell you what the general |
| 24 |
feeling of arch vs ~arch there is: |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
~arch is plenty good enough for everything except very mission critical |
| 27 |
stuff |
| 28 |
arch has plenty old stuff in it |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
~arch does not break every other day, and breakage is actually |
| 31 |
surprisingly rare. And, it's usually confined to |
| 32 |
openrc/udev/systemd/baselayout and other critical packages where one |
| 33 |
just knows upfront anyway that danger may lurk ahead. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Some folks like me sync daily and accept that I deal with occasional |
| 36 |
breakage maybe once a month. Usually I just mask an offending package |
| 37 |
and move on. Others wait a few days and if no reported bugs, then emerge it. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
I get the sense that hard masked and -9999 is the new testing, ~arch is |
| 40 |
new stuff and arch is for fuddy duddys that can't abide breakage of any |
| 41 |
kind (very much like debian stable actually). I also get the sense that |
| 42 |
arch progresses too slowly for many people. How long did we wait for |
| 43 |
MySQL-5.5 to reach arch? Folk wanted that one in stable reasonably early |
| 44 |
and mixing arch/~arch is very very bad in real life. Hence the |
| 45 |
recommendation to switch to ~arch, and it usually works out just fine. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
Hey, maybe you guys are doing your job in ~arch *too well*, to your own |
| 48 |
detriment :-) Something to consider? |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
[snip] |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
-- |
| 54 |
Alan McKinnon |
| 55 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |
Archives