Re: [arch] conservative/stable branch

Amen !!! On Wed, 2007-11-07 at 22:43 -0500, Ryan Sims wrote: > On Nov 7, 2007 8:00 PM, Aaron Griffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Nov 7, 2007 2:27 AM, DaNiMoTh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I hope this never happen; I love arch as is. > > > A stable / conservative branch will only steal

Re: [arch] conservative/stable branch

On Nov 7, 2007 9:43 PM, Ryan Sims <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Nov 7, 2007 8:00 PM, Aaron Griffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Nov 7, 2007 2:27 AM, DaNiMoTh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I hope this never happen; I love arch as is. > > > A stable / conservative branch will only steal t

[arch] dvdstyler problems

Hi All, I posted this before but retracted it because I decided to try some other programs but I'm back to dvdstyler. Anyway, I'm posting here because the problem does not exist for me on debian. I'm new to Arch Linux and I have everything else working working quite well. Here is my error message.

Re: [arch] conservative/stable branch

On Nov 7, 2007 8:00 PM, Aaron Griffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Nov 7, 2007 2:27 AM, DaNiMoTh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I hope this never happen; I love arch as is. > > A stable / conservative branch will only steal time of devs. > > It's better use 100% of our forces to improve core, ex

Re: [arch] Xorg with composite by default?

On Wed 2007-11-07 23:17 , Rodrigo Coacci wrote: > Is it just my system or anyone else noticed that Xorg enables composite > extension by default? I mean even if you don't explicitly enable composite > in xorg.conf. > > I'm using Nvidia proprietary drivers. Maybe they enable composite by > default?

[arch] Xorg with composite by default?

Is it just my system or anyone else noticed that Xorg enables composite extension by default? I mean even if you don't explicitly enable composite in xorg.conf. I'm using Nvidia proprietary drivers. Maybe they enable composite by default? -- Cheera Rodrigo A computer is like air conditioni

Re: [arch] conservative/stable branch

On Nov 7, 2007 2:27 AM, DaNiMoTh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I hope this never happen; I love arch as is. > A stable / conservative branch will only steal time of devs. > It's better use 100% of our forces to improve core, extra and > community and packages contained in these. > > Oh, all things I

Re: [arch] conservative/stable branch

On Wed, November 7, 2007 23:47, Zhukov Pavel wrote: > > I maintain some packages in community. Sorry, of course community it is't > official part of Arch, and TU's should stay trouble with packages alone. Sorry. I didn't realise you were a Trusted User, I take back my comment. James __

Re: [arch] conservative/stable branch

On Mittwoch, 7. November 2007 11:11 Zhukov Pavel wrote: > 1) I know about Arch-Way. And i hope you like it because your words sounds a little bit negative.-) > 2) Arch starts to accelerate developing process and growing up > repositories, however Devs/TUs count aren't growing - this way it beco

Re: [arch] conservative/stable branch

On Mittwoch, 7. November 2007 09:37 Colin Pitrat wrote: > The stable branch is the current+extra+community repository. For tests, > there is the testing repository. If more people were using the testing > repository, there would be less problems. Package don't go from the > testing repository to a

Re: [arch] conservative/stable branch

Using a stable version of arch at a (quite large) company scale is really easy : - Install a first mirror and use a test computer on this one to test every application your company use. - Install a second mirror that takes snapshots of the first one when your tests are OK - Configure every co

Re: [arch] conservative/stable branch

On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 11:15:30 +0100 Marc Deop i Argemí <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wednesday 07 November 2007, Jorge Leon wrote: > > I would love to see this happen. > > Dude, you don't need arch, you need another distro ;) > > I think Arch is great as it is right now :D > Just my 10c .. I c

Re: [arch] conservative/stable branch

Am Mittwoch, 7. November 2007 schrieb Branko Vukelic: > > Also, this is a rolling-release distro. It ships latest software as > > soon as possible and feasible, and then it slowly patches it up if > > it's found to be broken. I don't see a problem with that. > > I didn't mean to imply that packages

Re: [arch] conservative/stable branch

Am Wed, 7 Nov 2007 04:56:58 + schrieb "Jorge Leon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 14:56:16 "Roman Kyrylych" wrote: > > There were occasional talks about more conservative/stable branch > > for Arch, so this possibly may happen in future. > > I would love to see this happen. > > Jo

Re: [arch] conservative/stable branch

> Also, this is a rolling-release distro. It ships latest software as > soon as possible and feasible, and then it slowly patches it up if > it's found to be broken. I don't see a problem with that. I didn't mean to imply that packages are NOT tested before they make it into core and extras. Quite

Re: [arch] conservative/stable branch

To throw in my 2c As Aaron said in the forums, this might as well be a first serious issue upon pacman -Syu and most of it caused by upstream issues. As for me, I've never had any serious issues after an update, and therefore would say Arch is more stable for me than most other distros. Also, thi

Re: [arch] conservative/stable branch

On Wednesday 07 November 2007, Zhukov Pavel wrote: > User fedback is good for "testing" but not for core/extra This is getting tiresome++ I'll be the first to agree with you that Arch is not 100% stable and robust. I don't think it's really intended to be - at the very least it's touted as "bl

Re: [arch] conservative/stable branch

2007/11/7, Zhukov Pavel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > On 11/7/07, Roman Kyrylych <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 2007/11/7, Zhukov Pavel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Ok, example. I have octave and octaveforge installed. > > > > > > if any of curl, gnuplot, coreutils... updated with .sobump it stop to > w

Re: [arch] conservative/stable branch

On 11/7/07, Roman Kyrylych <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 2007/11/7, Zhukov Pavel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Ok, example. I have octave and octaveforge installed. > > > > if any of curl, gnuplot, coreutils... updated with .sobump it stop to > work, > > cause it linked with old libs version. > > Somet

Re: [arch] conservative/stable branch

Hmm. I still don't see a bug report on flyspray. By the way. The process you just listed out is what is commonly known as 'user feedback'. Zhukov Pavel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Don't be a troll. Everyone on this list can create exemples > Fill a bug report and the package will be updated

Re: [arch] conservative/stable branch

> > Why didn't you post a bugreport for that? > > Do you understand what about I'm talking? Why we fix broken things, > creating problems for users instead of just solve this before? > > So in essence, you want everything done for you? You don't want to spend any of your time testing i

Re: [arch] conservative/stable branch

On 11/7/07, Ravi Desai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hmm. I still don't see a bug report on flyspray. > By the way. The process you just listed out is what is commonly known as > 'user feedback'. > > Zhukov Pavel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Don't be a troll. Everyone on

Re: [arch] conservative/stable branch

On 11/7/07, RedShift <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Zhukov Pavel wrote: > > > > > > On 11/7/07, *James Rayner* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > wrote: > > > > On Wed, November 7, 2007 21:11, Zhukov Pavel wrote: > > > > > > 1) I know about Arch-Way. > > > > >

Re: [arch] conservative/stable branch

Zhukov Pavel wrote: > 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 dist

Re: [arch] conservative/stable branch

On Wed, 2007-11-07 at 15:42 +0300, Zhukov Pavel wrote: > > if any of curl, gnuplot, coreutils... updated with .sobump it stop to > work, cause it linked with old libs version. > Sometime it updates after several days in repos. So, every time i > should rebuild it manually. > Why? Can't we create

Re: [arch] conservative/stable branch

On 11/7/07, Biru Ionut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Wed, 2007-11-07 at 15:42 +0300, Zhukov Pavel wrote: > > > > if any of curl, gnuplot, coreutils... updated with .sobump it stop to > > work, cause it linked with old libs version. > > Sometime it updates after several days in repos. So, ever

Re: [arch] conservative/stable branch

2007/11/7, Zhukov Pavel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Ok, example. I have octave and octaveforge installed. > > if any of curl, gnuplot, coreutils... updated with .sobump it stop to work, > cause it linked with old libs version. > Sometime it updates after several days in repos. So, every time i should >

Re: [arch] conservative/stable branch

Zhukov Pavel wrote: > > > On 11/7/07, *James Rayner* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote: > > On Wed, November 7, 2007 21:11, Zhukov Pavel wrote: > > > > 1) I know about Arch-Way. > > > > 2) Arch starts to accelerate developing process and growing u

Re: [arch] conservative/stable branch

On 11/7/07, James Rayner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, November 7, 2007 22:00, Zhukov Pavel wrote: > > It's like a beryl developing way - increasing features without > > stabilization. After some time 30% of features unusable, other works > > unstable, upgrade breaks anything. > > > > Last

Re: [arch] conservative/stable branch

On 11/7/07, James Rayner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, November 7, 2007 21:11, Zhukov Pavel wrote: > > > > 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 > > m

Re: [arch] conservative/stable branch

On Wed, November 7, 2007 22:00, Zhukov Pavel wrote: > 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_! Nonsense. Eithe

Re: [arch] conservative/stable branch

On Wed, November 7, 2007 21:11, Zhukov Pavel wrote: > > 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

Re: [arch] conservative/stable branch

On 11/7/07, Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 12:07:48PM +0100, Antonio de la Rosa wrote: > > > > > Well, RPM distros are not Arch. You don't have real update in a year, > > for example. You have security updates. Do you can update Fedora > > versions with yum?. Centos fo

Re: [arch] conservative/stable branch

On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 12:07:48PM +0100, Antonio de la Rosa wrote: > Well, RPM distros are not Arch. You don't have real update in a year, > for example. You have security updates. Do you can update Fedora > versions with yum?. Centos for example, no. I don't know if fedora can > be updated

Re: [arch] xorg 7.3 and keyboard

On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 08:56:18AM +0100, Xavier wrote: > On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 12:17:37AM +0100, Petar Bogdanovic wrote: > > You maybe want to take a look at: > > > > http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/8539 > > > > I do have a xmodmap ~/.Xmodmap in .xinitrc, and I didn't notice any problems. > So

Re: [arch] conservative/stable branch

2007/11/7, Zhukov Pavel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Lastest 'pacman -Syu' breaks something _every_time_! > > Why we can't keep small, and usable distro, which can be safety updated? > It doesn't break anything on my system. Yes, community packages can be broken after something goes from testing to cor

Re: [arch] conservative/stable branch

Zhukov Pavel escribió: > 1) I know about Arch-Way. > Well. > 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

Re: [arch] conservative/stable branch

On 11/7/07, RedShift <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Zhukov Pavel wrote: > > > > > > On 11/7/07, *Antonio de la Rosa* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Since some time ago arch becomes rarely unstable distros. Even a > half > > > year ago i

Re: [arch] conservative/stable branch

Zhukov Pavel wrote: 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). (...) 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 e

Re: [arch] conservative/stable branch

Zhukov Pavel wrote: > > > On 11/7/07, *Antonio de la Rosa* <[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 > > som

Re: [arch] conservative/stable branch

On 11/7/07, Antonio de la Rosa <[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 a

Re: [arch] netcfg2 is now in [testing]

On Wed, November 7, 2007 09:32, Antony Jepson wrote: > John, > > netcfg 1.99.32-1 is indeed netcfg2. I believe it is called 1.99.32 > because it is in testing. When it comes out of testing, I suppose it > will be updated to netcfg2. Yup. Package name will remain netcfg, but version will bump to

Re: [arch] conservative/stable branch

> > 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'

Re: [arch] conservative/stable branch

Zhukov Pavel wrote: > > > On 11/7/07, *Colin Pitrat* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote: > > > > > 2007/11/7, Jorge Leon <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >: > > On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 14:56:16 "Roman Kyrylych" wrote: > > > There were occasional talks

Re: [arch] conservative/stable branch

On 11/7/07, Colin Pitrat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > 2007/11/7, Jorge Leon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 14:56:16 "Roman Kyrylych" wrote: > > > There were occasional talks about more conservative/stable branch for > > > Arch, so this possibly may happen in future. > > > > I w

Re: [arch] conservative/stable branch

On Wednesday 07 November 2007, Jorge Leon wrote: > I would love to see this happen. Dude, you don't need arch, you need another distro ;) I think Arch is great as it is right now :D signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. _

Re: [arch] conservative/stable branch

2007/11/7, Jorge Leon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 14:56:16 "Roman Kyrylych" wrote: > > There were occasional talks about more conservative/stable branch for > > Arch, so this possibly may happen in future. > > I would love to see this happen. > > Jorge. The stable branch is the curre

Re: [arch] ArchLinux CoreDump - Update Quality

Hello Aaron! Am Dienstag, 6. November 2007 21:42:04 schrieben Sie: > On Nov 6, 2007 6:34 AM, Dirk Kredler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > What i am trying to say is: i am more and more scared about "pacman -Syu" > > Well, while I feel for you, I really do, I need to point out that the > above

Re: [arch] conservative/stable branch

2007/11/7, Jorge Leon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 14:56:16 "Roman Kyrylych" wrote: > > There were occasional talks about more conservative/stable branch for > > Arch, so this possibly may happen in future. > > I would love to see this happen. > > Jorge. I hope this never happen; I lo

Re: [arch] xorg 7.3 and keyboard

On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 12:17:37AM +0100, Petar Bogdanovic wrote: > You maybe want to take a look at: > > http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/8539 > I do have a xmodmap ~/.Xmodmap in .xinitrc, and I didn't notice any problems. So it probably depends on the contents of .Xmodmap. I only have this kind