You’re probably being downvoted because you say “Not Again” to updates while using a rolling release distro. Like ordering a daily newspaper, then getting annoyed at getting a new issue every day.
Just because I use rolling doesn’t mean I am mandated to update every minute of my life. There are times when I’m genuinely excited for an update like for example when KDE does something new. Pretty much everything else is just little tweaks and bug fixes that will most likely result in me reading docs and figuring out what went wrong.
Sure, but the common consensus seems to be that you shouldn’t be annoyed at the constant updates when that’s an explicit feature of that system. Maybe that’s just a misreading, but I assume the expected reaction would be “Not now” rather than “Not again”.
(I’m not taking a position, as I’ve never worked with a rolling distro and can’t really comment on either stance, just trying to navigate the confusion here)
Well yeah, rolling release distros inherently require more fixing because you get all of the software as it is patched with far less testing for conflicts. If you want something you have to fix less get a stable release
Which is kinda why I like waiting a little but that doesn’t really matter because it’s always rolling. Guess I’m just delaying having to fix my system. So I update whenever I’m not busy with my life.
Yeah, I’m just saying with Arch the tweaking is a feature, not a bug. You can get the same UI with something far more plug and play using something like Debian Stable or even Mint if you like Cinnamon. I’m an openSUSE stan myself but thats just because I like to experiment, break things, and then roll my system back.
Maybe because the jre thing was an update that required manual intervention, there was an Arch news item about it. You’re expected to read the Arch news before an update when you’re running Arch. This can be automated with alias update='yay -Pw && pacman -syu' If that’s too much for you, use a different distro.
I’ve seen this a few times with various distributions. People always say stuff about checking news files or whatever their distros call them. I have no idea what those are or where to find them. It would seem extremely prudent for the update tool to print relevant information.
Brew does this. (I am not using Brew as an example of a perfect package management tool.) It also has “caveats” that get printed for some packages. It seems much more useful this way.
Printing the entire change log is overkill, but at least breaking changes and such would be extremely useful.
I just went “Shiit! Am I sitting on potential system breakage?” (because I don’t remember doing any such intervention)
But turns out it was just a conflicts with change.
From what I know, pacman straight-up asks you what you want, in these cases.
Sure, it’s technically manual intervention, but for me, who scans over updated packages every-time, this is considered standard procedure.
Manual intervention is when GRUB doesn’t install properly using the suggested command and you have to learn where your distro places the boot image and configure stuff accordingly.
It’s fine though, I know what I signed up for. I used Ubuntu for a year before moving over to Arch and and I quite like it. Everytime I decide to update though, I try to do so when I am not busy during school, and prepare for the worse when I do plan to update.
If you want rolling release, but still a stable distro, just go with OpenSUSE Tumbleweed, it’s a rolling release with snapshots that you can go back to if something breaks. IIRC they also have a special app verification thingy that’s supposed to be more stable than Arch’s.
Are you talking about the major java/jre repackaging issue, that was announced (proposed update procedure included) on the archlinux news-page, that you are supposed to check before an update?
If so, then you can’t really blame the distro, if you don’t follow basic best practice guidelines.
And then you’d also be pretty late to that update and should run updates more frequently. Once a week to at least once a month is a good idea. That’s the idea of a kinda bleeding edge, rolling release distro.
If you want reliable updates Arch isn’t the best fit IMO.
It can be perfectly reliable for sure, but it’s permitted not to be.
If you really want to update and not worry about it, I would consider Fedora, they test updates and upgrades while also being very close to bleeding edge.
what are you using?
Arch. Just updated a few days ago, got some java conflict stuff. Jdm jre or some kind of error. Had to read what people online did to fix that.
Edit: lmao why am I being downvoted?
You’re probably being downvoted because you say “Not Again” to updates while using a rolling release distro. Like ordering a daily newspaper, then getting annoyed at getting a new issue every day.
Just because I use rolling doesn’t mean I am mandated to update every minute of my life. There are times when I’m genuinely excited for an update like for example when KDE does something new. Pretty much everything else is just little tweaks and bug fixes that will most likely result in me reading docs and figuring out what went wrong.
Sure, but the common consensus seems to be that you shouldn’t be annoyed at the constant updates when that’s an explicit feature of that system. Maybe that’s just a misreading, but I assume the expected reaction would be “Not now” rather than “Not again”.
(I’m not taking a position, as I’ve never worked with a rolling distro and can’t really comment on either stance, just trying to navigate the confusion here)
My reaction is more of “not now”. Not again might happen when something breaks. So every update is a little gamble for me.
Fair enough, I guess that nuance got lost then
You’re not mandated to update often but its encouraged.
It can be a lot easier, for example, to fix one small break three times than it is to fix 3 breaks at one time.
Well yeah, rolling release distros inherently require more fixing because you get all of the software as it is patched with far less testing for conflicts. If you want something you have to fix less get a stable release
Which is kinda why I like waiting a little but that doesn’t really matter because it’s always rolling. Guess I’m just delaying having to fix my system. So I update whenever I’m not busy with my life.
Yeah, I’m just saying with Arch the tweaking is a feature, not a bug. You can get the same UI with something far more plug and play using something like Debian Stable or even Mint if you like Cinnamon. I’m an openSUSE stan myself but thats just because I like to experiment, break things, and then roll my system back.
Lol switch from arch if you like waiting a little
Nah it’s fine. I like to get the latest kde updates.
Iirc fedora got kde 6 update before arch lol. Or use kde neon
deleted by creator
Maybe because the jre thing was an update that required manual intervention, there was an Arch news item about it. You’re expected to read the Arch news before an update when you’re running Arch. This can be automated with
alias update='yay -Pw && pacman -syu'If that’s too much for you, use a different distro.To make it even more convenient, register to their mailing list and you get a heads up.
My ADHD and 1297 unread emails make that a bad idea.
With the alias, the news pop up in front of me right when they’re relevant.
Those are rookie numbers son, you gotta get on that.
You ppl don’t use auto archive/categorise/delete ?
Why can’t it print into as part of the update? Why is it a separate command?
It’s the KISS philosophy. The package manager is for managing packages, not for reading mail
I’ve seen this a few times with various distributions. People always say stuff about checking news files or whatever their distros call them. I have no idea what those are or where to find them. It would seem extremely prudent for the update tool to print relevant information.
Brew does this. (I am not using Brew as an example of a perfect package management tool.) It also has “caveats” that get printed for some packages. It seems much more useful this way.
Printing the entire change log is overkill, but at least breaking changes and such would be extremely useful.
I just went “Shiit! Am I sitting on potential system breakage?” (because I don’t remember doing any such intervention)
But turns out it was just a conflicts with change.
From what I know,
pacmanstraight-up asks you what you want, in these cases. Sure, it’s technically manual intervention, but for me, who scans over updated packages every-time, this is considered standard procedure.Manual intervention is when GRUB doesn’t install properly using the suggested command and you have to learn where your distro places the boot image and configure stuff accordingly.
Also, I don’t have JDK so…
CC BY-NC-SA
Arch is great when you’re somewhat experienced with Linux. Otherwise I recommend an Arch + QoL distro like EndeavourOS.
I’m a developer using Linux for well over a decade and a half and I use EndeavourOS because it just adds a level of ease.
It’s fine though, I know what I signed up for. I used Ubuntu for a year before moving over to Arch and and I quite like it. Everytime I decide to update though, I try to do so when I am not busy during school, and prepare for the worse when I do plan to update.
If you want rolling release, but still a stable distro, just go with OpenSUSE Tumbleweed, it’s a rolling release with snapshots that you can go back to if something breaks. IIRC they also have a special app verification thingy that’s supposed to be more stable than Arch’s.
Are you talking about the major java/jre repackaging issue, that was announced (proposed update procedure included) on the archlinux news-page, that you are supposed to check before an update?
If so, then you can’t really blame the distro, if you don’t follow basic best practice guidelines.
And then you’d also be pretty late to that update and should run updates more frequently. Once a week to at least once a month is a good idea. That’s the idea of a kinda bleeding edge, rolling release distro.
If you want reliable updates Arch isn’t the best fit IMO.
It can be perfectly reliable for sure, but it’s permitted not to be.
If you really want to update and not worry about it, I would consider Fedora, they test updates and upgrades while also being very close to bleeding edge.