Thanks for the response. Do you consider Arch a production system or more of a hobby project? Meaning more like a side system and not a main one. On Dec 23, 2011 5:39 AM, "Allan McRae" <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
Hello everyone,
I was reading the package signing discussion that was going on over at
On 23/12/11 20:32, Jonathan Vasquez wrote: the
[pacman-dev] mailing list
http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2011-February/012483.html
and Allan said the following:
"I think I know every distribution using pacman as a package manager and
(unless there is an enterprise level distro I am missing) if peoples lives depend on one of these distros, then I am sorry to say it but in my opinion they are stupid and deserve to die."
I wanted to know what was he trying to say? Is he saying that Arch and other Arch-like distros aren't serious distros that aren't meant for production? I mean I understand that Arch is rolling release and all that, but it's packages are marked stable by their corresponding upstreams.
What are your opinions about this?
I was saying, I would not stake my life on the stability of Arch Linux. It has been know to get broken and not just by bad packaging. Upstream "stable" releases are not necessarily stable. e.g. bash-4.2.005 was a minor upstream bug fix that resulted in Arch not booting.
Allan