4 ms·

The advantage of Linux packaging for distros like Arch become apparent when you actually want to create a package, and realize how easy it is.

jchw 7y ago
Arch is definitely nice, with PKGBUILDs that are basically exactly what you want. NixOS has its Nix language, and the Nixpkgs system, which definitely takes some time and I'd even say is more cumbersome than PKGBUILDs, but it has its advantages. But going back, building packages for RPM or Dpkg based distros does not really feel that simple or easy. I think easy packaging is something we have today by virtue of simplifying things.
- techntoke 7y ago
  Agreed 100%. I'm really impressed at how much is available in the AUR, and how quick Arch gets updated, and I have to attribute it primarily to how easy it is to maintain packages.
  - paulcarroty 7y ago
    > and how quick Arch gets updated > and how often Arch will be broken after updates If You Have Said A, You Must Also Say B (c)
    - techntoke 7y ago
      Nope, not at all. I havent had my system break in more than a year, and when it did it was surprisingly easy to fix. Usually you can just downgrade whatever package or kernel caused the issues until they get fixed. Once I did have to boot Arch from USB to resolve, but that has been a long time ago.
    - jchw 7y ago
      I find this extremely untrue actually. Distros like Debian make you think that a rolling release must be unstable by virtue of the fact that the underlying software is unstable and it just isn’t true. Most of the software just isn’t breaking. The downstream is just doing too much magic, and that is breaking. Arch is easily one of the most stable distros I’ve used Period. No hyperbole at all. It is more stable than NixOS unstable, and much more stable than Debian testing, and you don’t have to deal with the periodic massive shift that breaks the world when you upgrade Debian or Ubuntu versions. It’s because it’s simple. When it was a newer distro it had some issues, but for at least the past few years it’s been very stable, and most packages require few patches from upstream to work well. Even using a bunch of AUR packages doesn’t usually lead to unstability in Arch. Upgrades that require manual intervention are documented on the front page: https://www.archlinux.org/ https://www.archlinux.org/ I’ve hit two during my multi year span of using Arch. Worth noting that few bugs will impact everyone since they are often scoped to packages that are not installed by default.

jchw 7y ago

Arch is definitely nice, with PKGBUILDs that are basically exactly what you want. NixOS has its Nix language, and the Nixpkgs system, which definitely takes some time and I'd even say is more cumbersome than PKGBUILDs, but it has its advantages. But going back, building packages for RPM or Dpkg based distros does not really feel that simple or easy. I think easy packaging is something we have today by virtue of simplifying things.

techntoke 7y ago
Agreed 100%. I'm really impressed at how much is available in the AUR, and how quick Arch gets updated, and I have to attribute it primarily to how easy it is to maintain packages.
- paulcarroty 7y ago
  > and how quick Arch gets updated > and how often Arch will be broken after updates If You Have Said A, You Must Also Say B (c)
  - techntoke 7y ago
    Nope, not at all. I havent had my system break in more than a year, and when it did it was surprisingly easy to fix. Usually you can just downgrade whatever package or kernel caused the issues until they get fixed. Once I did have to boot Arch from USB to resolve, but that has been a long time ago.
  - jchw 7y ago
    I find this extremely untrue actually. Distros like Debian make you think that a rolling release must be unstable by virtue of the fact that the underlying software is unstable and it just isn’t true. Most of the software just isn’t breaking. The downstream is just doing too much magic, and that is breaking. Arch is easily one of the most stable distros I’ve used Period. No hyperbole at all. It is more stable than NixOS unstable, and much more stable than Debian testing, and you don’t have to deal with the periodic massive shift that breaks the world when you upgrade Debian or Ubuntu versions. It’s because it’s simple. When it was a newer distro it had some issues, but for at least the past few years it’s been very stable, and most packages require few patches from upstream to work well. Even using a bunch of AUR packages doesn’t usually lead to unstability in Arch. Upgrades that require manual intervention are documented on the front page: https://www.archlinux.org/ https://www.archlinux.org/ I’ve hit two during my multi year span of using Arch. Worth noting that few bugs will impact everyone since they are often scoped to packages that are not installed by default.