3 ms·

Arch is arguably worse than most about this, because their rolling repositories dump versions after a couple of updates are available. So if you wait too long t

by deong 12y ago

Arch is arguably worse than most about this, because their rolling repositories dump versions after a couple of updates are available. So if you wait too long to update, it can't even figure out how to get started, because it no longer has the slightest idea what the packages you have installed even mean. Don't get me wrong, I like Arch a lot, and I've been using it as my main Linux distribution for the past five years at least. But if don't do a full "pacman -Su" at least once a week, it's absolutely going to shit the bed at some point.

coldpie 12y ago
I guess I'm kind of surprised that people are OK with updating infrequently. Don't your distros distribute security updates? How long do you wait before applying them?
- adultSwim 12y ago
  I just want to use my computer. I don't want to just constantly administer it instead. I usually don't want new features. I'd often rather have what's already there fully working. The lack of finished software available (e.g. TeX) is astounding.
- trey-jones 12y ago
  In my case I might have had arch on a machine that just sat in a corner for a month. Boot it up -> update -> brick.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- deong 12y ago
  I usually do updates about once a week. If I need to install a new package, I'll usually refresh everything then as well. But occasionally it's longer than that. I just forget for a week or so, go on holiday, etc. Most of the time, I come back, do an "Syu", and it's fine. Occasionally though, things go pear-shaped. Once or twice I've needed to manually fetch packages from one of the archive sites and manually copy it into pacman's cache directory to get things up and going again.
Arguggi 12y ago
I've been trying to keep a problem log for arch updates for the past few months [0] but I haven't tried not updating for a while. Now I'm curious, so I guess I'm trying it for a month [1]. [0] https://arguggi.co.uk/blog/list.html https://arguggi.co.uk/blog/list.html [1] https://arguggi.co.uk/blog/Not-Updating/ https://arguggi.co.uk/blog/Not-Updating/

by deong 12y ago

coldpie 12y ago

I guess I'm kind of surprised that people are OK with updating infrequently. Don't your distros distribute security updates? How long do you wait before applying them?

adultSwim 12y ago
I just want to use my computer. I don't want to just constantly administer it instead. I usually don't want new features. I'd often rather have what's already there fully working. The lack of finished software available (e.g. TeX) is astounding.
trey-jones 12y ago
In my case I might have had arch on a machine that just sat in a corner for a month. Boot it up -> update -> brick.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
deong 12y ago
I usually do updates about once a week. If I need to install a new package, I'll usually refresh everything then as well. But occasionally it's longer than that. I just forget for a week or so, go on holiday, etc. Most of the time, I come back, do an "Syu", and it's fine. Occasionally though, things go pear-shaped. Once or twice I've needed to manually fetch packages from one of the archive sites and manually copy it into pacman's cache directory to get things up and going again.

Arguggi 12y ago

I've been trying to keep a problem log for arch updates for the past few months [0] but I haven't tried not updating for a while. Now I'm curious, so I guess I'm trying it for a month [1]. [0] https://arguggi.co.uk/blog/list.html https://arguggi.co.uk/blog/list.html [1] https://arguggi.co.uk/blog/Not-Updating/ https://arguggi.co.uk/blog/Not-Updating/