4 ms·

> That is, sudo pacman -S some-package may lead to problems, so it's recommended to use sudo pacman -Syu some-package instead (see this section for more details

• pxc 4y ago
  This particular quirk is a good example of one of the shortcuts pacman takes which would not be tolerated in dnf. The Arch devs here say 'partial upgrades are unsupported'. Fedora devs might say 'a dependency resolver can't handle partial upgrades is literally incorrect'. At the same time, pacman is very fast compared to zypper or dnf, and many users prefer it for that reason.
  • scns 4y ago
    I prefer slower, working upgrades to quick 'n' dirty ones.
    • pxc 4y ago
      I think both sides of the tradeoff can be valid choices, especially if the simpler implementation tends to fail in predictable, manageable ways. I think that's how most Arch users must feel, like > Upgrades via pacman rarely cause issues, and when they do I always know how to manage it because the design is simple and clearly documented enough that I can always understand what's going on. Partial upgrades don't make much sense for the kind of rolling release Arch is anyway. If that's someone's experience using Arch or whatever for $N years, then who would I be to say they haven't made the right choice for them? Personally, my preferences are similar to yours. My favorite package managers have never been the fastest or the simplest, but the most featureful and robust. But I'm trying to develop a deeper appreciation for the things that many legitimately love about the simplest and fastest ones as well.
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• pkulak 4y ago
  Except that you have about 48 hours to do that before all the mirrors start 404ing.