Comments on: A stable Arch branch?

By: Anabella

Anabella — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 04:03:23 +0000

I love the idea. The only thing I don’t like about Arch is the rolling release system. Everything else I love.

By: Jalfrock

Jalfrock — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 23:12:03 +0000

I like it. The main reason I continue to use Slackware rather than Arch is precisely that I’m too conservative for a rolling-release system. If Arch could give me a stable version that I didn’t have to mess with for a year, I’d switch in a heartbeat.

By: nDray

nDray — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 21:09:16 +0000

pacman 4.0 (it’s a long shot, i know), is scheduled to support package downgrade. I guess that will solve the rolling release problems in the best way anyone could imagine.

By: finferflu

finferflu — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 21:26:44 +0000

I think the point is having the stability of, say, Debian (to be ambitious), and the KISS philosophy of Arch. The best of both worlds, isn’t it?

By: K.Mandla

K.Mandla — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 12:35:20 +0000

And I agree with you both. It’s not something I would use, but if there’s a subsection of the Arch following that wants it, and they’re willing to put it together, I see no harm in that. I’ll even give it a try. But I’m 99 percent sure at this point that it’s not something I’d use regularly.

By: bautz

bautz — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 12:30:06 +0000

I don’t see the point too. Same reasons as Satchmo.
Arch is KISS! And I love it for that reason.
No KISS, no Arch.

By: Satchmo

Satchmo — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 11:13:10 +0000

Frankly, I don’t see the point. You have to provide bug and security fixes for older software, and you have the hassle of reinstalling or dist-upgrading every six months or so.
We’ve got Debian for that. Or Ubuntu.
Arch is about NOT doing this way, IMHO. It’s the main reason why I chose it as my principal distro.