[pacman-dev] pacman.conf possible changes

Aaron Griffin aaronmgriffin at gmail.com
Fri Dec 8 17:24:33 EST 2006

On 12/8/06, Dan McGee <dpmcgee at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/8/06, Roman Kyrylych <roman.kyrylych at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Shouldn't [unstable] be before community, current and extra by default? ;-/
> >
> People might get a bit too eager and uncomment the repo and run a
> pacman -Syu

Yes, this is the impression I got too, and I agree with it.
[unstable] is exactly that.  [community], on the other hand, is
generally stable yet less popular packages.  If you go by logical,
hierarchal ordering, "before" sometimes implies "better".
If I didn't know better, and saw community below unstable, I would
automatically  think "community is _worse_ than unstable", but it is,
in actuality the other way around.  I'd put my money on a community
package before an unstable one (no offense to Shadowhand) because most
of those are development versions, and unstable by their very nature.

More information about the pacman-dev mailing list