quoth the Daniel Schledermann (TypoConsult A/S): > darren kirby wrote: > >quoth the Daniel Schledermann (TypoConsult A/S): > >>- Another alternative is Arch Linux, which also has binary packages, but > >>also a portage-like build system. This IS linux, but uses BSD-init, and > >>does not seem as mature as Gentoo or FreeBSD. > >> > >>/Daniel > > > >I disagree that Arch is a good choice for a server. I do run an Arch box > > (not production) but I think that pacman updates are way less stable than > > portage. Seems everytime I go to do an update, once per month or so, they > > have changed something drastically that needs manual intervention to > > facilitate the upgrade. > > Good with some clarification. Like I wrote, it does not seem very > mature, but it is interesting alternative that has some properties in > common with Gentoo. Judging from their package names and versions, they > will have to change a lot, before they can be stable in the ports og > portage sense.
Well, I didn't mean to sound like I was trashing Arch. To be fair, pacman is a very good package manager, and it was never a stated goal of Arch to have any sort of stable branch. There is no 'stable' repository of packages per se, there is 'current' which, according to the about page is generally the latest stable version of the upstream package. Probably not what you want on a production server. There was some talk on the mailing list of a community created 'stable' repository in the 'safe for a server' sense of the word but I am unaware if this has progressed or not. > >The most recent was a change to udev that required you to either use > > Arch's specially patched canned kernel or update to vanilla 2.6.16, > > neither of which I really wanted to do. My arch box has way more downtime > > than any of my Gentoo boxes, and I run Gentoo on three different > > platforms. > > > >Just an opinion here, but I don't think Arch is a good choice for a > > server, production or otherwise. Makes a real nice bleeding edge desktop > > though... > > Thanks for the advice. > > > /Daniel I just wanted to chime in as you seemed to be suggesting it as an option for server, if that was not your intent I do apologize. To bring this back on topic I will say to the OP that Gentoo is quite suitable for a server, especially if you dedicate an extra machine for testing updates. And using the Apache configuration file change as an example, it was brought up in all the usual channels well in advance, and also very well documented. -d -- darren kirby :: Part of the problem since 1976 :: http://badcomputer.org "...the number of UNIX installations has grown to 10, with more expected..." - Dennis Ritchie and Ken Thompson, June 1972
pgpxQpprfeE89.pgp
Description: PGP signature
