FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > ArchLinux > ArchLinux General Discussion

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 10-24-2011, 04:32 AM
Gaetan Bisson
 
Default repo - minimal requirements?

[2011-10-24 11:41:47 +0800] Oon-Ee Ng:
> [testing] is for experienced users who can deal with broken systems,
> not for the 'absolute latest' package versions. It may break
> critical/[core] packages, as such users are strongly encouraged to
> subscribe to [arch-dev-public] and watch the [testing] sub-forum.

I believe we all agree on that.

> https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=128682
>
> A user basically is using [testing] without fulfilling the above
> requirements. Should the user be advised not to use [testing] or is
> this counter-productive to the purpose of [testing]?

People using [testing] should read arch-dev-public, just as all Arch
users should read the news announcements. It is a waste of time for
everyone when people ask questions that have already been answered
there.

--
Gaetan
 
Old 10-24-2011, 12:23 PM
Heiko Baums
 
Default repo - minimal requirements?

Am Mon, 24 Oct 2011 11:24:26 +0200
schrieb Tom Gundersen <teg@jklm.no>:

> On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 5:41 AM, Oon-Ee Ng <ngoonee.talk@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > A user basically is using [testing] without fulfilling the above
> > requirements. Should the user be advised not to use [testing] or is
> > this counter-productive to the purpose of [testing]?
>
> It is very important that people use testing [0], so we should really
> encourage _more_ rather than less of that, IMHO. Rather than advice
> the user to stop using testing, I'd advice them to sign up to the
> mailinglist :-)
>
> Maybe this requirement should be communicated more clearly (e.g. a
> comment in the standard pacman.conf)?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tom
>
> [0]: a lot of the non-trivial bugs against my packages are discovered
> after they move to core, probably because the people with the right
> hardware/use-cases are not using testing.

I agree with the Wiki. From the developer's point of view it's of
course better to have more users using [testing].

But when I switched to Arch Linux some years ago I was used to using the
"testing" tree from Gentoo because without "testing" you wouldn't get a
lot of packages there. It's because a lot of packages have never been
moved to the stable tree.

But when I switched to Arch Linux and used the [testing] repo, too, I
once had a serious issue, which has broken my system. As a result, I
had to reinstall Arch Linux completely. Maybe the reinstall wouldn't
have been necessary if I wasn't new to Arch Linux.

After several years I can't tell you anymore what has happened exactly.
But since then I know that Arch's [testing] repo is completely different
from Gentoo's "testing" tree.

On the other hand I never had any serious issues with packages from the
stable repos. And if there was a new package which didn't run anymore
it was only this single package. And until the bug is fixed I can still
use the old version.

So [testing] is definitely not for users who need a stable production
system or for new Arch users. Those users should stay with the stable
repos. That's what they are meant for.

People should use [testing] only if they know what they are doing, if
they don't rely on a stable system, and if they want or are asked to
help testing the packages.

[testing] is not meant for having a bleeding edge system. Packages
usually only stay in [testing] for a few days. So people still have a
bleeding edge system if they are using the stable repos.

The same question regularly appears on AUR at packages which depend or
are based on another package in the repos and a new version of this
dependency is put to [testing].

So, please, don't encourage every user to using [testing], and stay with
what the Wiki says.

Heiko
 
Old 10-24-2011, 03:52 PM
Leonid Isaev
 
Default repo - minimal requirements?

On (10/24/11 09:37), Myra Nelson wrote:
-~> On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 06:53, Tom Gundersen <teg@jklm.no> wrote:
-~> > On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 1:40 PM, Martti Kühne <mysatyre@gmail.com> wrote:
-~> >> On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Tom Gundersen <teg@jklm.no> wrote:
-~> >> <snip>
-~> >>> Maybe this requirement should be communicated more clearly (e.g. a
-~> >>> comment in the standard pacman.conf)?
-~> >>
-~> <snip>
-~> doesn't get it and start slicing and dicing. Keep the commentary
-~> civil.
-~>
-~> Myra
-~>
-~>
-~> --
-~> Life's fun when your sick and psychotic!

It is simple: if you don't use testing you never learn. Telling others "RTFM
and don't ask questions" is ridiculous, because following this logic >50% of
forum posts is just noise. And just because you subscribe to ML doesn't mean
that you'll remember 1 relevant message out of 100 (personally I learned more
from http://allanmcrae.com/2011/08/pacman-package-signing-3-pacman/ about
pacman package signing than from all of [{arch,pacman}-dev*]. This is of course
not to say that ML are not important, beacuse they are.

Besides, one really doesn't have to enable testing in pacman.conf -- individual
pacman -U will do, imho.

Regarding your compile flags, I would use -match=native (instead of your
-march and -m) and -fstack-protector-all (instead of -fstack-protector) if you
don't mind increasing the size of binaries a little.

--
Leonid Isaev
GnuPG key ID: 164B5A6D
Key fingerprint: C0DF 20D0 C075 C3F1 E1BE 775A A7AE F6CB 164B 5A6D
 
Old 10-24-2011, 04:19 PM
Leonid Isaev
 
Default repo - minimal requirements?

On (10/24/11 18:00), Karol Blazewicz wrote:
-~> On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Leonid Isaev <lisaev@umail.iu.edu> wrote:
-~> > Besides, one really doesn't have to enable testing in pacman.conf -- individual
-~> > pacman -U will do, imho.
-~>
-~> I've read that [testing] is all or nothing and you shouldn't
-~> cherrypick packages because you might break something.
-~> Somewhat relevant https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=127144

That's where brain comes in handy

--
Leonid Isaev
GnuPG key ID: 164B5A6D
Key fingerprint: C0DF 20D0 C075 C3F1 E1BE 775A A7AE F6CB 164B 5A6D
 
Old 10-25-2011, 02:58 PM
Leonid Isaev
 
Default repo - minimal requirements?

On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 19:38, Oon-Ee Ng <ngoonee.talk@gmail.com> wrote:
-~> > On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 12:19 AM, Leonid Isaev <lisaev@umail.iu.edu> wrote:
-~> >> On (10/24/11 18:00), Karol Blazewicz wrote:
-~> >> -~> On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Leonid Isaev <lisaev@umail.iu.edu> wrote:
-~> >> -~> > Besides, one really doesn't have to enable testing in pacman.conf -- individual
-~> >> -~> > pacman -U will do, imho.
-~> >> -~>
-~> >> -~> I've read that [testing] is all or nothing and you shouldn't
-~> >> -~> cherrypick packages because you might break something.
-~> >> -~> Somewhat relevant https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=127144
-~> >>
-~> >> That's where brain comes in handy
-~> >>
-~> > Yes, its a REALLY good idea to state that its okay to pacman -U
-~> > individual [testing] packages on a public mailing list with at least
-~> > some users who really don't know any better than to do just that.
-~> >

Say I want to try package X, but instead I download pkgs X, Y and Z from
testing. Now my scripts which rely on /proc/.../BAT0/* fail because pkg Y is a
new kernel, /dev/cdrom is gone since pkg Z is udev. And all I wanted is to try
out new qemu-kvm...

IMHO saying that testing is for experienced people is misleading since
"experienced" is a vague term; such statements only repell users. A useful
guideline would be "think three times before you type and understand how
package management works".

--
Leonid Isaev
GnuPG key ID: 164B5A6D
Key fingerprint: C0DF 20D0 C075 C3F1 E1BE 775A A7AE F6CB 164B 5A6D
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 01:07 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org