On 15:58 Fri 06 Apr , Peter Feuerer wrote: > On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 12:44 +0200, Christian Schmidt wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 12:31:06PM +0200, Peter Feuerer wrote: > > > > One single question: why? Arch is meant to be rolling-release-distro. It > > > > is not intended to "stick with a release". The releases are just there > > > > to make the installation easier. If you want to stick with a release, > > > > you most likeley chose the wrong distribution. > > > > > > > > Christian // mucknert > > > > > > I think it would not be much effort, and you'll give the users the > > > choice of sticking to a release or not. So the question is, why not? The > > > only reason I see to not doing this is because of the diskspace this > > > "additional" packages need. > > > And if the releases are just there for easier installations, why do you > > > still keep older releases? > > > > > > --peter > > > > You don't seem to understand. "Sticking" to a release means a lot more > > than just keeping old packages. What do you think why Distributions like > > Ubuntu, SuSE, RH and suchlike spend so much time on? QA, of course. > > Sticking to a release needs, if done the right way, infrastructure and a > > lot of manpower. If one just keeps old packages, a shitload of problems > > will emerge. Think of unfixed security-issues and the likes. If you want > > to volunteer for QA, go for it. In the meantime, I don't think that this > > will happen in Arch. > > > > Developers Comments are appreciated. > > I didn't think of "stable" releases with QA and security patches for the > next few years - whatever. I just wanted to have something like a > "state" where I can stick to. > Maybe you'll get my point when I tell you my exact usecase: > I set up a computer for my parents for office and multimedia purposes. I > installed everything, about the time when the "release" 0.8 was > launched. Then I tested every functionality they need for their daily > work. So, there is no need to update, because everything is working so > far. But if I want to install e.g. gnomebaker, I have to update nearly > everything, because the package of gnomebaker of the date when 0.8. was > launched does not exist anymore, and gnome has been updated. So I have > to test all things they want to do with this computer again. > > One possible solution would be, just as I proposed, to hold the packages > of the extra repo, with the base repo when "releases" are launched. (can > be done by a script which copies every file to the release/extra/ > directory) > The other solution would probably be, that I mirror the complete extra > repo at the time when I make the installation for this computer. > > And btw, no I definitely don't want Arch to be another version number > based distribution like Fedora, or SUSE..
OK, I misunderstood your request :) -- Alessio 'mOLOk' Bolognino Arch Linux Trusted User http://www.archlinux.org _______________________________________________ arch mailing list [email protected] http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
