1 |
quoth the Daniel Schledermann (TypoConsult A/S): |
2 |
> darren kirby wrote: |
3 |
> >quoth the Daniel Schledermann (TypoConsult A/S): |
4 |
> >>- Another alternative is Arch Linux, which also has binary packages, but |
5 |
> >>also a portage-like build system. This IS linux, but uses BSD-init, and |
6 |
> >>does not seem as mature as Gentoo or FreeBSD. |
7 |
> >> |
8 |
> >>/Daniel |
9 |
> > |
10 |
> >I disagree that Arch is a good choice for a server. I do run an Arch box |
11 |
> > (not production) but I think that pacman updates are way less stable than |
12 |
> > portage. Seems everytime I go to do an update, once per month or so, they |
13 |
> > have changed something drastically that needs manual intervention to |
14 |
> > facilitate the upgrade. |
15 |
> |
16 |
> Good with some clarification. Like I wrote, it does not seem very |
17 |
> mature, but it is interesting alternative that has some properties in |
18 |
> common with Gentoo. Judging from their package names and versions, they |
19 |
> will have to change a lot, before they can be stable in the ports og |
20 |
> portage sense. |
21 |
|
22 |
Well, I didn't mean to sound like I was trashing Arch. To be fair, pacman is a |
23 |
very good package manager, and it was never a stated goal of Arch to have any |
24 |
sort of stable branch. There is no 'stable' repository of packages per se, |
25 |
there is 'current' which, according to the about page is generally the latest |
26 |
stable version of the upstream package. Probably not what you want on a |
27 |
production server. |
28 |
|
29 |
There was some talk on the mailing list of a community created 'stable' |
30 |
repository in the 'safe for a server' sense of the word but I am unaware if |
31 |
this has progressed or not. |
32 |
|
33 |
> >The most recent was a change to udev that required you to either use |
34 |
> > Arch's specially patched canned kernel or update to vanilla 2.6.16, |
35 |
> > neither of which I really wanted to do. My arch box has way more downtime |
36 |
> > than any of my Gentoo boxes, and I run Gentoo on three different |
37 |
> > platforms. |
38 |
> > |
39 |
> >Just an opinion here, but I don't think Arch is a good choice for a |
40 |
> > server, production or otherwise. Makes a real nice bleeding edge desktop |
41 |
> > though... |
42 |
> |
43 |
> Thanks for the advice. |
44 |
> |
45 |
> |
46 |
> /Daniel |
47 |
|
48 |
I just wanted to chime in as you seemed to be suggesting it as an option for |
49 |
server, if that was not your intent I do apologize. |
50 |
|
51 |
To bring this back on topic I will say to the OP that Gentoo is quite suitable |
52 |
for a server, especially if you dedicate an extra machine for testing |
53 |
updates. And using the Apache configuration file change as an example, it was |
54 |
brought up in all the usual channels well in advance, and also very well |
55 |
documented. |
56 |
|
57 |
-d |
58 |
-- |
59 |
darren kirby :: Part of the problem since 1976 :: http://badcomputer.org |
60 |
"...the number of UNIX installations has grown to 10, with more expected..." |
61 |
- Dennis Ritchie and Ken Thompson, June 1972 |