apologises for chiming in on a less positive note, but... > "i'm sure users are leaving daily cuz this mess"
this statement bothers me, does anybody have any evidence/knowledge of this causing this mass exodus? all i saw was the single statement if this statement can not be backed up or is not known, it doesn't seem helpful (even if it is). a lot of hard work goes into arch (most behind the scenes in testing), and while it's not a distro popularity contest, i'm sure it's a concern. but statements like that sound like an attempt to crack a whip at an already generous dev group. On 7/7/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hey Jason and the gang; > > Well if people are leaving because of "stuff" being broke, without putting > forth an effort to help fix it: Then I predict said people will be leaving > every other linux distro also. i.e. ALL the linux distros go through pains > incorporating newer gcc's IMnsHO. <- Al least that is my experience with > about 60 distros over the past 10-12 years or so. (YMMV) > > Very best regards; > > Bob Finch > > P.S...AND archlinux has done a really good job about handling such > instability issues so far. > > > > I completely agree with jason on this and that was a fantastic reply > > that actually helped explain some stuff for me that I didn't know as > > well. Maybe a description like this would be helpful if made available > > to the normal non mailing list user.As for users leaving due to such > > issues is a completely false statement. If users have further questions > > on policys and implementations most join onto the irc chat or hit the > > forum for clarity before deciding to leave the distro. > > > > Maveric-i686- > > > > Jason Chu wrote: > > > >>On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 11:53:52PM -0700, sn0n wrote: > >> > >> > >>>even moving the kernel from testing, dont stop someone from upgrading > >>> their gcc, then getting stuck on nvidia (or any other modules > >>>really?), since the kernel is still compiled with 3.x... maybe gcc > >>> belongs in unstable... since everyone under the sun is just told to > >>> uncomment testing anyways, since everyone wants the 'bleeding edge'.. > >>> > >>> > >> > >>I think that's silly. We have current, extra, and unstable for the > >> 'bleeding edge'. Testing is for... wait for it... testing! You can't > >> complain that something is broken in a repo that essentially means, > >> "we're not quite sure if this is broken". > >> > >>I would also rather not make testing into a regular repo. That's what > >> current, extra, and unstable are for. If we made testing just another > >> repo, we'd need really-really-testing for the stuff we're actually > >> truly testing. > >> > >>We can't really put gcc4 into unstable because unstable isn't meant to > >> be a partial repo, it's meant to be a full one. Anything in unstable > >> shouldn't be in any other repo and definitely shouldn't share the same > >> name with anything in any of the other big three repos. The only way > >> gcc could go in there is if it's called gcc4 and can be installed > >> alongside gcc3. > >> > >> > >> > >>>just have testing self contained, and compile the kernel with the > >>> current testing gcc.. its not that hard.. after all.. Arch uses PHP5 > >>> by default.. look how well it works.. ;-) > >>> > >>> > >> > >>Yes, testing should be self contained. I don't know if you've been > >> around long enough to remember, but we used to have an NPTL repo > >> because all the NPTL stuff took too long in testing and it was no > >> longer self contained. Because of the amount of work to set up a new > >> repo, we try not to do it. From what I understand we're waiting on the > >> gcc4.0.1 release to see if it's fit for our use. > >> > >>"its [sic] not that hard" -- Have you actually tried it? Sometimes > >> things are a lot more difficult than you think... Ever thought that > >> maybe someone else already thought about this and then *didn't* do it > >> for some specific reason? > >> > >> > >> > >>>if you 'move the kernel' will you also be setting up another fork, one > >>> for 2.4 and one for 2.6, and then a gcc 3.x version and a gcc 4.x > >>> version? wow.. 4 kernels now, where all you have to do is start moving > >>> over to gcc more.. it is TESTING afterall.. right? > >>> > >>>or maybe the structure of Current , Testing , Unstable.. needs to be > >>> reviesed.. > >>> > >>> > >> > >>Just a note. I'm not trying to be critical of you as a person. But > >> when you say something like "we really should change this..." no one's > >> going to listen to you. Personally, I find it annoying when people say > >> we should change something for the "better" but then never actually say > >> what we should do. > >> > >> > >> > >>>i'm sure users are leaving daily cuz this mess, but dont know where to > >>> go or where to look, or have any idea of whats wrong.. > >>> > >>> > >> > >>People are leaving because the stuff we say might be broken is broken? > >> That seems a little pretentious, doesn't it? They demand perfection > >> even where we admit we're not perfect. I don't know how much I like > >> users like that anyway... > >> > >>Jason > >> > >> > >> > >>------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >> > >>_______________________________________________ > >>arch mailing list > >>[email protected] > >>http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch > >> > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > arch mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch > > > > > _______________________________________________ > arch mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch > _______________________________________________ arch mailing list [email protected] http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
