[arch-general] Discussion on usage of [testing] repo - minimal requirements?

Myra Nelson myra.nelson at hughes.net
Mon Oct 24 10:37:59 EDT 2011

On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 06:53, Tom Gundersen <teg at jklm.no> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 1:40 PM, Martti Kühne <mysatyre at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Tom Gundersen <teg at jklm.no> wrote:
>> <snip>
>>> Maybe this requirement should be communicated more clearly (e.g. a
>>> comment in the standard pacman.conf)?
>> Great idea. I mean, as a non-[testing] user I get that guinea pig
>> feeling which comes naturally with linux often enough. Don't miss to
>> express that [testing] here is far from what other distros label with
>> "testing" and will hopefully break your system (because we want to
>> know).
> Depends on who you compare to, unlike certain other distro's who shall
> not be named, we actually compile, install and test our packages
> before pushing to testing. We really don't want any packages in
> testing to break anyone's system as that will lead to fewer people
> using it. However, there will obviously be problems from time to time.
> Personally, I use testing on all my five machines (including for
> work), and never experienced a big problem (such as loss of data or a
> failed boot), but your mileage may vary ;-)
> Cheers,
> Tom
IMHO, one that doesn't count for much, I have to agree with Tom. I
also have to agree with those making the point for watching the Arch
Dev Public mailing list and reading the news announcements. I moved to
Arch because it forces me to learn how to maintain my machines. It
also allows me to compile my base and core packages to my machines
architecture not a generic configuration. This is my system:

Linux gandalf 3.0-pf #1 SMP PREEMPT Mon Oct 24 00:05:45 CDT 2011
x86_64 AMD Phenom(tm) 8450 Triple-Core Processor AuthenticAMD

This is my makepkg configuration:

CFLAGS="-march=amdfam10 -m64 -O2 -pipe -fstack-protector
--param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2"
CXXFLAGS="-march=amdfam10 -m64 -O2 -pipe -fstack-protector
--param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2"

This may not be an extreme, or even close to an edge case, but it
might find something that a generic compile doesn't find. I've also
discovered whether it boots or not, I can fix it. I will admit, as
someone who has already responded on this thread can attest, I can
ocassionally as a "I really should have known that" type of question.
However, everyone screws up every once in a while, except me I'm

The rest of this may be considered noise/off topic/thread high jacking
but I'll try to make a point. Until I became disabled and had to
retire in 2009 I was considered one of the best at what I did. I
routinely trained people and wrote training manuals. It tooks years of
having someone point out to me that I had the same response when
training people that some experienced linux users have. If I had to
tell someone more than once how to do it they got dressed down, after
the third time I had no use for them. That was a hard lesson to learn.
My son was an expert, definition of an expert -- a has been little
drip, with Windows and worked as a support tech. He had the same
opionion when training people, after the third how to do the same
thing he had no use for them. The same son who was quick to point out
how badly I treated people when trying to train them.

I know answering the same questions over and over can be a pain and no
one wants to invite "help vampires" but simply saying "don't use
testing" just doesn't seem to be the right way to go. I've read the
thread linked in the first email and I agree with the point made if,
and I point out if and only if, it's done graciously. To many people,
no names etc just generic people, jump in  when the original poster
doesn't get it and start slicing and dicing. Keep the commentary


Life's fun when your sick and psychotic!

More information about the arch-general mailing list