On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 12:31:06PM +0200, Peter Feuerer wrote: > > One single question: why? Arch is meant to be rolling-release-distro. It > > is not intended to "stick with a release". The releases are just there > > to make the installation easier. If you want to stick with a release, > > you most likeley chose the wrong distribution. > > > > Christian // mucknert > > I think it would not be much effort, and you'll give the users the > choice of sticking to a release or not. So the question is, why not? The > only reason I see to not doing this is because of the diskspace this > "additional" packages need. > And if the releases are just there for easier installations, why do you > still keep older releases? > > --peter
You don't seem to understand. "Sticking" to a release means a lot more than just keeping old packages. What do you think why Distributions like Ubuntu, SuSE, RH and suchlike spend so much time on? QA, of course. Sticking to a release needs, if done the right way, infrastructure and a lot of manpower. If one just keeps old packages, a shitload of problems will emerge. Think of unfixed security-issues and the likes. If you want to volunteer for QA, go for it. In the meantime, I don't think that this will happen in Arch. Developers Comments are appreciated. -- My Public GnuPG-Key: http://craphouse.ath.cx/~christian/pub/gpg/
pgpd7QdDIcCDT.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ arch mailing list arch@archlinux.org http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
