4 ms·

Well, it makes sense because Arch's policy is to follow upstream with minimal patches, so they would wait for the new kernel to fix the bug rather than applying

Well, it makes sense because Arch's policy is to follow upstream with minimal patches, so they would wait for the new kernel to fix the bug rather than applying a patch themselves. If you don't like this policy, you might want to pick a different distro or use your own kernel.

bpchaps 11y ago
Nah, I totally get it. It's still incredibly frustrating, especially considering it only broke after spending three hours fixing an issue that pacman itself caused. I'm definitely in the works of finding a new distro. :)
- openfuture 11y ago
  NixOS or Void linux are rational alternatives to Arch
- cyphar 11y ago
  OpenSUSE Tumbleweed has much better testing, and is actually faster than Arch in some cases. I've switched a lot of my machines recently. And you can use OBS which actually builds "AUR" packages for you (you can branch them on OBS if you want to modify them, or you can even download and modify the package locally).
  - snuxoll 11y ago
    If I didn't run Fedora and CentOS on my servers at work I would probably switch to Tumbleweed on my XPS 13. In reality I shouldn't really need to keep my development environment so close to what I deploy on, but it's nice to be able to quickly test a RPM I'm packaging without needing access to my server at home/work or dealing with a VM or docker.