of course its backed up... im a user/hobbyist , not a developer / guru / watever you wanna call it, and im now on Fedora 4. and general rules of nature are for every one person that speaks up, another 50 dont.. :-D
i really only wanted to say that the testing kernel (wouldnt that be testing it) should be compiled with gcc4, so its more of a complete repo, and not a 'broken' one when you pacman -Syu and have testing unmarked (as alot of people suggest doing on the forums), you dont break your system... sorry for suggesting something small, then overanalyzing in my typical stuborn ignorant american ways.. On 7/7/05, JP Fielding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 > -- ~Rob http://sn0n.com/ _______________________________________________ arch mailing list [email protected] http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
