On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 06:53, Tom Gundersen <teg@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 1:40 PM, Martti Kühne <mysatyre@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Tom Gundersen <teg@xxxxxxx> 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 GNU/Linux 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 perfect. 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 civil. Myra -- Life's fun when your sick and psychotic!
