Thanks for the response. Do you consider Arch a production system or more of a hobby project? Meaning more like a side system and not a main one. On Dec 23, 2011 5:39 AM, "Allan McRae" <allan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 > >
