[arch-general] A suggestion for the devs regarding rebuilds

Brendan Long korin43 at gmail.com
Mon Feb 8 19:56:31 EST 2010


On 02/08/2010 04:49 PM, fons at kokkinizita.net wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 06:42:56PM -0500, dave reisner wrote:
>    
>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 6:26 PM,<fons at kokkinizita.net>  wrote:
>>      
>>> In other words, do not *force* a user to update all
>>> app using a library just because one of them requires
>>> a newer version. Doing this leaves the user with a
>>> broken system, possibly at the most inconvenient time.
>>>        
>>
>> Arch doesn't force you to update. It's been repeated ad nauseum that partial
>> updates are dangerous. I propose you don't update at all if you don't have
>> time to update everything. Problem solved. You're trying to apply an ugly
>> bandaid a non-existant wound.
>>      
> Installing a new app is not an update. It may require
> an update of a library, and my point is that such an
> update should not disable other apps. Which is achieved
> by just leaving the old *.so in place. That's all.
>
> It's more and more clear that the only resistance to
> this is of a very nonrational kind.
>
> Ciao,
>
>    
Why are you even using Arch? You sound like the kind of person who would 
want a "stable" distro like Ubuntu or Debian. Your changes sound like 
they would break the best parts of Arch (updates and simple packages).


More information about the arch-general mailing list