[arch-general] pacman new generation

[Buce]

On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Isaac Dupree <
ml at isaac.cedarswampstudios.org> wrote:

> On 11/22/2011 02:41 PM, Karol Blazewicz wrote:
>
>> I using testing / staging repos does this already: you try out
>> [testing], if it doesn't work, you disable it and run 'pacman -Suu'.
>> Would using different sync dbs and a separate cache turned into a
>> local repo make it easy enough to be practical?
>>
>
> Also, pacsnap[1] does a good enough job for me.  Which is to take maybe
> 70% of the risk out of upgrading -- sure, a reversion won't work all the
> time, but I need it rarely enough that the low overhead of pacsnap is more
> convenient for me than the risk of living with a partly-broken system until
> it's fixed upstream is bad.
>
> That being said, if someone polishes btrfs snapshots, I might use that
> instead.  (Once I switch to btrfs, that is.)
>
> [1] http://aur.archlinux.org/**packages.php?ID=34290<http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=34290>
>

People keep bringing up btrfs snapshots but no one's mentioned LVM
snapshots. Is it not worthwhile? I've been meaning to try it out for a
while now.