[arch-general] bitcoin-qt out-of-date

[Diego Viola]

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 7:29 PM, Eli Schwartz via arch-general
<arch-general at archlinux.org> wrote:
> On 09/01/2016 06:00 PM, Diego Viola wrote:
>> No, I'm not saying that, please let's not make this personal, it's not.
>>
>> I'm also OK compiling my own bitcoin-qt or whatever, I'm just
>> concerned there are many outdated packages as of late, and what makes
>> Arch so special to many people is the rolling release part and up to
>> date packages.
>
> I am not trying to make this personal. :)
> It just sounds like you are unhappy with the way the TUs are handling
> things, and I am trying to highlight the fact that they are doing the
> best they can.
>
> What makes Arch so special, is not just the up-to-date packages, but the
> do-it-yourself mindset and the existence of the AUR. It is the fact that
> Arch users know how their system works, and usually know how to build
> their own packages as and when needed, to enhance their system beyond
> what the main repositories contain. As a result, we have the power to
> run experimental (*-git) versions of stuff, to update before the distro
> maintainers do, etc.
> And, there will always be out-of-date packages.
>
> But, there are ~15K packages in the repos, and 745
> currently-flagged-out-of-date ones.
> (That includes things in testing, and duplicated i686/x86_64
> arch-dependent packages... so the actual numbers will be different but
> the proportions should be similar and thus the point is the same.)
>
> Most packages in Arch are up to date. And the TUs work hard to keep
> things that way. And even though they sometimes fail, we are still more
> up to date than most other distros. We may sometimes be less special,
> but even then we are still pretty darn special. :)
> Being concerned that the system is slacking as a whole is probably not
> going to be an accurate assumption. The sky is not falling.
>
> And if it were... that only means Arch users are less interested these
> days in becoming TUs and helping to spread the load and keep things
> running smoothly. In which case, maybe "we" don't deserve to have Arch
> provided for our use anymore.
> Not that I think that is happening!
>
> ...
>
> The solution, in all cases, remains the same. Pitch in to help, acquire
> familiarity with the way Arch works, contribute your own AUR packages to
> learn the ropes, and then try to get someone to sponsor you to become a
> TU. (Or, whichever steps are applicable to each person's case.)
>
> Arch helps those who help themselves.
>
> --
> Eli Schwartz

I'm not unhappy with Arch, it is by far my favorite distribution. I'm
simply worried we're seeing more and more out of date packages, but
the reasons are understandable, maybe I should start relaying on the
AUR more.

I'm simply curious if there is something we can do to help as users.

Diego