Re: [gentoo-user] How to manage package.keywords for greater system reliability?
On Fri, 22 May 2009 12:38:34 +0100 Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote: On Fri, 22 May 2009 07:40:28 -0300, Jorge Morais wrote: maybe you should just run a ~arch system. I want a reliable system. Isn't ~arch quite less reliable than arch ? Not in my experience. ~arch only means the builds are in testing, the software is as reliable as upstream makes it. You may hit the occasional problem when updating, but once the software is installed it will be as reliable as on any other distro. I find it hard to believe this. ~arch often releases a X.0 version soon after it is released. It normally only enters stable after upstream has released the X.2 or X.3 bugfix release. Also, the Gentoo developers take some care to make the stable packages harmonious. For example, stable GCC can compile other stable packages. But a ~arch GCC seems to result in bugs (look at bug #198121, GCC 4.3 porting). So ~arch users tend to eat more bugs. I think my doubt is very important. Pity that the Python-uninstallation thread stole all attention :( Oh, and do you also think that the introduction of _FORTIFY_SOURCE by default in GCC-4.3.3 without warning (no mention in the Changelog) was bad manners of the developers? I think I should take this thread to gentoo-dev
Re: [gentoo-user] How to manage package.keywords for greater system reliability?
On Thu, 21 May 2009 21:41:22 -0300, Jorge Morais wrote: Or maybe I should just stick to all-stable, so as to not be different, and keep package.keywords for those packages where I really want a new feature (like packages with no stable versions)? If you want so many up to date packages, maybe you should just run a ~arch system. It's been said many times that a mixed system is a potential source of trouble. Your comparison of stable Gentoo with Debian testing is strange, since the Gentoo equivalent is ~arch. -- Neil Bothwick If at first you don't succeed you'll get lots of advice. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] How to manage package.keywords for greater system reliability?
On Fri, 22 May 2009 09:00:05 +0100 Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote: On Thu, 21 May 2009 21:41:22 -0300, Jorge Morais wrote: Or maybe I should just stick to all-stable, so as to not be different, and keep package.keywords for those packages where I really want a new feature (like packages with no stable versions)? If you want so many up to date packages It is not so much. My package.keywords/longterm lists 13 packages; my package.keywords/shortterm lists 21 packages, many of which will get out of there in the future, as the version I use become stable. 5 of these 21 packages would not be there if I always had my current it is better to avoid the bleeding edge view. maybe you should just run a ~arch system. I want a reliable system. Isn't ~arch quite less reliable than arch ? (Also, newer software versions are often more bloated). It's been said many times that a mixed system is a potential source of trouble. I didn't hear it. Your comparison of stable Gentoo with Debian testing is strange, since the Gentoo equivalent is ~arch. I thought Debian testing was more stringent regarding reliability than Gentoo ~arch; anyway, the point is that when a new bugfix release (like gimp 2.6.6) is released, I want to see if other distros consider the bugfixes important enough to pick it; I chose Debian because I am somewhat familiar with it; and Debian testing because AFAIK Debian stable only rarely picks updates that are not security-related. Some people even say that Debian stable is for servers.
Re: [gentoo-user] How to manage package.keywords for greater system reliability?
On Fri, 22 May 2009 07:40:28 -0300, Jorge Morais wrote: maybe you should just run a ~arch system. I want a reliable system. Isn't ~arch quite less reliable than arch ? Not in my experience. ~arch only means the builds are in testing, the software is as reliable as upstream makes it. You may hit the occasional problem when updating, but once the software is installed it will be as reliable as on any other distro. (Also, newer software versions are often more bloated). That's a highly subjective view, and quite irrelevant. New versions can be about adding features, or they can be about bug-fixing and optimising existing features. It's been said many times that a mixed system is a potential source of trouble. I didn't hear it. It comes up on this list frequently when discussions about problems caused by mixing arch and ~arch are mentioned. I run mainly ~arch but a couple of computers run arch plus some packages in package.keywords. I can honestly say that the pure ~arch machines are just as reliable. The reason I run the arch boxes is that stability is important for them; not in the reliability sense (that's important everywhere) but in reducing the number of updates needed on each box. -- Neil Bothwick Whats the difference between a magician and a brothel? One has a cunning array of stunts, signature.asc Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-user] How to manage package.keywords for greater system reliability?
Hi. I used to think it was safe to use ~arch packages (through package.keywords) on a stable system until I saw bug #257047 - GCC 4.3 didn't have a strict enough glibc dependency. And comment #15 in that bug report is: [...] we don't test or support half-stable half-testing toolchains, and they are likely to break, like in this case. if you're going to use an ~arch keyworded complier, you will need to use a ~arch libc. OK, I will avoid ~arch toolchain components. What worries me is that I never saw a warning about this. Also, GCC 4.3.3 enables FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 by default and this breaks some packages. A developer said on 2009-04-10 they were only processing bugs that can be confirmed in ~arch. So an arch system with ~arch toolchain could hit many bugs and maybe such a system would even be less reliable than an entirely ~arch system. So: 1) Certain subsystems, like the toolchain, need to be harmonious - either all arch or all ~arch. What other subsystems have this need? 2) With the FORTIFY_SOURCE issues, it seems that an ~arch toolchain shouldn't be used in an arch system at all. Now my greatest practical concern: bugfix releases 3) Sometimes Gentoo takes a long time to stabilize a bugfix release like media-gfx/gimp-2.6.6 (the latest arch-blessed release is 2.6.4); this release fixes many bugs and entered Portage in 2009-03-18 and by searching on b.g.o I can't find any regressions; and it entered Debian testing in 2009-04-01. I don't know the cause of this delay; I guess the arch testing teams are overworked. I often put these bugfix releases in package.keywords. Isn't it wise to use the latest bugfix release in a given major version? For example, I want to use sys-kernel/vanilla-sources-2.6.27.x, and since the last arch version is 2.6.27.12, far from the latest upstream stable version (2.6.27.24), I put =sys-kernel/vanilla-sources-2.6.27* in /etc/portage/package.keywords/shortterm. When I see a new bugfix release of a package I care about, I look at the changelog to see the bug corrections. I decide how much to wait before putting the bugfix version in package.keywords depending on the severity of the fixed bugs (and I look at bugs.gentoo.org for any regressions, and I look if the version has been accepted in distros like Debian testing).For example, I put mail-client/claws-mail-3.7.1 in package.keywords nearly immediately due to the importance of the bug fixes. Is it wise to do this for any program? Maybe only for programs not part of the core base system (such as the toolchain, bash or coreutils*), relying on the developers for the base system? Or maybe I should just stick to all-stable, so as to not be different, and keep package.keywords for those packages where I really want a new feature (like packages with no stable versions)? * Speaking of coreutils, it is still at 7.1, with upstream having released 7.4, which fixes bugs in 7.1 .
