Zhukov Pavel wrote: > > > On 11/7/07, *Antonio de la Rosa* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > > > > > Since some time ago arch becomes rarely unstable distros. Even a half > > year ago i don't afraid of pacman -Syu, now i sure that it breaks > > something. I'm already switched to Fedora on some machines to get > > stability, if arch continues going this way, it will lost many users > > IMHO. > Arch's updates are very simple if you compare with Fedora and rpm's > hell. Arch is not mainteined for a enterprise how Fedora(Red Hat make > many work in Fedora). For have a "stable" distro you need many resources > and time. You need people that known very well the package and his code > for apply patches and create backports. Is very difficult for a little > distro for Arch. Is more simple and easy(KISS) use sources created for > application's developers. Application's developers know his program > better that a package maintainer i think... > > > 1) I know about Arch-Way. > > 2) Arch starts to accelerate developing process and growing up > repositories, however Devs/TUs count aren't growing - this way it > becomes more and more unstable. > Arch can be small but stable instead of big and unusable, since we have > limited numbers of Devs. >
This is partly true, but it's not as bad as you're trying to portray here. > 4) Pacman developers do strange things deaning DB-backends and continue > to develop ugly and very slow plaintext DB. It's a package manager. Why does it have to be lightning fast? It takes care of packaging and does a great job at it (IMO). I've got nothing against a plaintext database, keeps dependencies low and it just works. If you really want a compiled database like sqlite or something: patches welcome. > > 5) As i write above, arch devs now are growing up arch repos, but > dependency problem still not resolved - e.g. most of resent problems > can't be exists in rpm distros since it updates will be deny by package > manager. What kind of dependency problems? > > 6) Fedora is not enterprise and there is no rpm-hell since fedora used > yum. yum+rpm even more simple to manage packages than pacman. And it's > FASTER than pacman! Then go use fedora with yum and rpm please. If fedora is so great, why are you still wasting your time here? Did you know upgrades to major distribution releases are officially discouraged and not recommended? This list is about discussing archlinux and is there for you to ask for assistance if you run into problems. We did not subscribe to this list to hear how great another distribution or package manager is. > > 7) I don't understand pacman devs - Bash pacman equal works only 10% > slower than C pacman! It's a package manager, why does it have to be fast? A while back I was poking about plans for a conservative/stable branch. Since then I was enlightened, and don't want a stable branch. _______________________________________________ arch mailing list arch@archlinux.org http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
