Let's update...
-
You don't even have to use the aur are to have breaking changes. Most recently they changed how vlc was packaged. And broke it causing a lot of problems for users.
That's pretty rare. I ran arch for years and my only issues were from AUR or trying to update extremely out of date machines.
-
Really should keep that PPA use to a minimum. They're potentially a source of not just instability but possible malware as you're putting a lot of trust in whoever maintains that resource.
Especially because there is no way to limit the packages installed from a PPA AFAIK. If the PPA has a "new" version of NGINX, or of libc, or of Wayland - you get it, too!!!
-
Especially because there is no way to limit the packages installed from a PPA AFAIK. If the PPA has a "new" version of NGINX, or of libc, or of Wayland - you get it, too!!!
Absolutely. Ideally you should have zero PPAs. There’s definitely a cost for using this feature. Most commonly it comes in the form of instability when you end up with incompatible or broken packages because the maintainer wasn’t playing an active enough role. YMMV!
-
That's pretty rare. I ran arch for years and my only issues were from AUR or trying to update extremely out of date machines.
I've run arch for years as well. It happens nearly yearly. I've had updates break completely several times. Partial updates. That required significant manual intervention. Etc Etc Etc. Meanwhile my Debian and fedora systems haven't had a hitch in years.
-
Especially because there is no way to limit the packages installed from a PPA AFAIK. If the PPA has a "new" version of NGINX, or of libc, or of Wayland - you get it, too!!!
You can set packages from a particular repo to a lower priority so that they are only installed when you expressly ask for them
-
You can set packages from a particular repo to a lower priority so that they are only installed when you expressly ask for them
How does one do that, Wise Zorro?
-
I've run arch for years as well. It happens nearly yearly. I've had updates break completely several times. Partial updates. That required significant manual intervention. Etc Etc Etc. Meanwhile my Debian and fedora systems haven't had a hitch in years.
I've moved on to gentoo. All the customization and if something breaks I can be sure it's my fault.
-
nix flake update nixos-rebuild --switch --flake . # Just to keep an update history git add flake.lock git commit -m "update"This may seem like too much work, but it guarantees an all-or-nothing procedure. If some package is broken, the entire upgrade process is canceled, and the system remains in the state that it was.
I have had a couple of partial upgrade cases on Arch. It was not fun live booting to repair it, every time this happened.
I've had updates fail on NixOS. A kernel update didn't generate the initramfs and the system wouldn't boot. Booting to a previous generation and reapplying the update fixed it.
This is very rare, though, and unlike Arch can be fixed without a Live USB.
-
I've had updates fail on NixOS. A kernel update didn't generate the initramfs and the system wouldn't boot. Booting to a previous generation and reapplying the update fixed it.
This is very rare, though, and unlike Arch can be fixed without a Live USB.
A kernel update didn't generate the initramfs
This sounds like a bug on Nix configuration, or the kernel build process.
If NixOS had caught the error, you wouldn't have gotten a faulty generation at all. This is different from pacman/apt/dnf, which will happily continue the upgrade, resulting in a broken system with no easy way to fix it.
-
I've moved on to gentoo. All the customization and if something breaks I can be sure it's my fault.
I haven't installed gentoo in 20 years. I still like arch for it's glaring flaws. And I do like BSDs ports etc. I probably should go through a gentoo install again to see how it changed. Last time I ran it. Was on a first generation Pentium.
-
I've never understood why the update part isn't included in the upgrade command, since upgrade is useless without it
Upgrade will upgrade the system to whatever is newest in your package cache. If, for example, you've just performed a partial upgrade and put yourself into an unsupported state, running
upgradewithout first runningupdatewill put your system back in line with itself.There probably almost never a reason for this, but its the equivalent of running
pacman -uwhich under normal circumstances you will never do -
You don't even have to use the aur are to have breaking changes. Most recently they changed how vlc was packaged. And broke it causing a lot of problems for users.
Or the Linux firmware package change that required manual intervention to resolve.
-
presses the big blue 'update' button in GNOME Software in Fedora
Checks 'automatic updates' box in Discover
-
I haven't installed gentoo in 20 years. I still like arch for it's glaring flaws. And I do like BSDs ports etc. I probably should go through a gentoo install again to see how it changed. Last time I ran it. Was on a first generation Pentium.
On a beefy machine it's nice. Chromium takes forever.
-
This post did not contain any content.
The second y in
Syyuis almost always unneeded and just wastes time and bandwidth. Is i remember correctly, it only makes sense when for example you switch mirrors -
Really should keep that PPA use to a minimum. They're potentially a source of not just instability but possible malware as you're putting a lot of trust in whoever maintains that resource.
I think Fedora's COPR carries on the torch, besides Arch's AUR. But generally, yeah, avoid PPA's like the plague. It's been garbage for years now. You'd be better off actually compiling the software yourself.
