On 11/7/07, RedShift <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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
It's like a beryl developing way - increasing features without stabilization. After some time 30% of features unusable, other works unstable, upgrade breaks anything. Lastest 'pacman -Syu' breaks something _every_time_! Why we can't keep small, and usable distro, which can be safety updated?
_______________________________________________ arch mailing list [email protected] http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
