11 ms·

> I've never had the infamous 'Arch updates are unreliable' issue. Is it certain packages that are more prone to it, or something? Liferea is currently broken

> I've never had the infamous 'Arch updates are unreliable' issue. Is it certain packages that are more prone to it, or something? Liferea is currently broken as of the latest update 5 days ago due to https://github.com/lwindolf/liferea/issues/1217 https://github.com/lwindolf/liferea/issues/1217 I also suffered from the grub issue mentioned here elsewhere, had to rescue my laptop after it became unbootable (though it was very simple to Google the problem and to fix it). I don't think using grub is particularly unusual choice in packages. I also had to downgrade Samba and wait a couple of weeks for a fix to a bug it had mounting password protected shares. Again, Samba isn't exactly an exotic package. Also had to downgrade something in my audio stack (I forget if it was pipewire, pulseaudio or a kernel issue that was the root cause) and wait a couple of weeks for a fix due to bluetooth issues. There's also the occasional update that requires manual intervention. All of that said, I don't think I cumulatively spent all that much time on maintaining my Arch systems as all these errors are spread across a long period of time and didn't take that long to handle. I probably spent a lot more time and nerves on Ubuntu as I don't think I've actually ever had a dist-upgrade work flawlessly and each time takes a lot of effort and mental energy.

G4E 4y ago
Those are all upstream bugs, not Arch's. That's the trade off when you're running bleeding edge, but you can't blame Archlinux for packaging a buggy application.
- Adverblessly 4y ago
  I'm no really blaming anyone, I'm thankful for Arch, I love it, and I recommend it to other people who ask (well, at least those that can handle it :)). > Those are all upstream bugs, not Arch's. IIRC the grub issue was in the update script, so it may have been an Arch bug rather than an upstream bug? Still, it would also be nice if a package is known to be broken due to an upstream bug it would get rolled back, so once the breakage is known, no one else will update into a broken state. That would save some time over each person individually updating to a broken state, debugging for a bit and then downgrading the broken package and then also paying attention not to reupdate it each time they update the system until the problem is resolved. But again, not trying to complain or assign blame, I was just responding to a question in a parent comment.

G4E 4y ago

Those are all upstream bugs, not Arch's. That's the trade off when you're running bleeding edge, but you can't blame Archlinux for packaging a buggy application.

Adverblessly 4y ago
I'm no really blaming anyone, I'm thankful for Arch, I love it, and I recommend it to other people who ask (well, at least those that can handle it :)). > Those are all upstream bugs, not Arch's. IIRC the grub issue was in the update script, so it may have been an Arch bug rather than an upstream bug? Still, it would also be nice if a package is known to be broken due to an upstream bug it would get rolled back, so once the breakage is known, no one else will update into a broken state. That would save some time over each person individually updating to a broken state, debugging for a bit and then downgrading the broken package and then also paying attention not to reupdate it each time they update the system until the problem is resolved. But again, not trying to complain or assign blame, I was just responding to a question in a parent comment.