| 1 |
On Fri, 22 May 2009 12:38:34 +0100 |
| 2 |
Neil Bothwick <neil@××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Fri, 22 May 2009 07:40:28 -0300, Jorge Morais wrote: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> > > maybe you should just run a ~arch system. |
| 7 |
> > I want a reliable system. Isn't ~arch quite less reliable than arch ? |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Not in my experience. ~arch only means the builds are in testing, the |
| 10 |
> software is as reliable as upstream makes it. You may hit the occasional |
| 11 |
> problem when updating, but once the software is installed it will be as |
| 12 |
> reliable as on any other distro. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I find it hard to believe this. |
| 15 |
~arch often releases a X.0 version soon after it is released. It |
| 16 |
normally only enters stable after upstream has released the X.2 or |
| 17 |
X.3 bugfix release. |
| 18 |
Also, the Gentoo developers take some care to make the stable packages |
| 19 |
harmonious. For example, stable GCC can compile other stable packages. |
| 20 |
But a ~arch GCC seems to result in bugs (look at bug #198121, |
| 21 |
"GCC 4.3 porting"). So ~arch users tend to eat more bugs. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I think my doubt is very important. |
| 24 |
Pity that the Python-uninstallation thread stole all attention :( |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Oh, and do you also think that the introduction of _FORTIFY_SOURCE |
| 27 |
by default in GCC-4.3.3 without warning (no mention in the Changelog) |
| 28 |
was bad manners of the developers? I think I should take this thread to |
| 29 |
gentoo-dev |
Archives