On 23/12/11 20:32, Jonathan Vasquez wrote: > Hello everyone, > > I was reading the package signing discussion that was going on over at the > [pacman-dev] mailing list > http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2011-February/012483.html > > and Allan said the following: > > "I think I know every distribution using pacman as a package manager and > > (unless there is an enterprise level distro I am missing) if peoples > lives depend on one of these distros, then I am sorry to say it but in > my opinion they are stupid and deserve to die." > > > I wanted to know what was he trying to say? Is he saying that Arch and > other Arch-like distros aren't serious distros that aren't meant for > production? I mean I understand that Arch is rolling release and all > that, but it's packages are marked stable by their corresponding > upstreams. > > What are your opinions about this? > I was saying, I would not stake my life on the stability of Arch Linux. It has been know to get broken and not just by bad packaging. Upstream "stable" releases are not necessarily stable. e.g. bash-4.2.005 was a minor upstream bug fix that resulted in Arch not booting. Allan
