On Monday 11 December 2006 09:21, RedShift wrote: > Erwin Van de Velde wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I think that Arch will never be the best server distribution: > > e.g. Moving from PHP 4.x to 5.0 without leaving the older version in the > > packages surely resulted in problems for a couple of web-based tools. > > Having a new kernel on an almost weekly basis is not going to help > > either. In my opinion Arch is meant to be easy, fast and near the edge > > between development and stable versions, which is why I like it on my > > laptop. > > For servers however, a little more stability is likely to be appreciated > > and so on the servers of our research group, I installed FreeBSD, which > > combines in my opinion stability and new features in a very good way, > > even though I am not eager to install it on my laptop due to the > > compilation times of the ports you install (it is almost like a source > > based distribution if you update regularly). > > > > Most of the time I am not a huge fan of all the different Linux and BSD > > distributions which differ in some details (e.g. think of all the > > Ubuntu-based distributions), but I think that there is a clear gap > > between a server distribution and one for personal use, a gap that cannot > > be closed just by keeping some older versions in some type of a stable > > repository. One of the most difficult things will be that you will get a > > huge amount of packages or that the user will have to start compiling > > everything anyway (version differences with libraries etc.: apache x.y > > compiled against lib*** z.u, apache x.y compiled against lib*** z'.u', > > ...). It does not seem like fun to be creating binaries for all those > > combinations and who will decide what is stable enough when? > > The library problem you are explaining is exactly what I am trying to > prevent. Let's say for example apache has been updated to 2.2.5, and in > the meantime zlib was updated too. So apache has been linked to the new > zlib. Suppose you only want to update apache. This poses a problem > because it has been linked with the new zlib while the old one is still > being used on your system. Updating zlib could lead to other problems, > php was probably linked with zlib too, etc, etc... That's the problem > I'm trying to overcome with arch-stable. > > > This is of course just my 2 cents :-) > > > > Greetings, > > Erwin > > > > _______________________________________________ > > arch mailing list > > arch@archlinux.org > > http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch > > _______________________________________________ > arch mailing list > arch@archlinux.org > http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
I must agree with Erwin, Although I use Arch on all my servers and routers, I don't think there is much of a risk when it comes to a wanky update like that bloody PHP since I test all updates on a local server and fix/update any tools or apps I use before I update all remotes, It keeps me on me toes. When I want to update a single application as RedShift suggested, I just compile that package in ABS or via a custom make package file and distribute it to all my remote servers and desktops. In short.. I am not qualified to say if arch-stable might be a good or bad move, during past years with Arch I can honestly say I have had no need for stable rep. Cheers to all, And to all happy Festivus. -- Guillermo A. Amaral, BCSE @ site: http://www.guillermoamaral.com/ @ blog: http://blog.guillermoamaral.com/
pgpM2adhsmbRY.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ arch mailing list arch@archlinux.org http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
