Is there any practical difference between just updating arch intermittently vs a point release distro?
by linuxuser371038 from LinuxQuestions.org on (#6P4QB)
Is it just the same if I only decide to update arch every 6 months or so compared to a point release distro? Actually now I write that I remember that doesn't work because due to file conflicts between old and new versions of things full updates are forced upon you.
I do update more often now due to learning that partial upgrades break stuff so I will do a full update when I want to install a new package which might be every month or two.
How does it work with point release distros when you want to install a new package? What I mean is with arch you usually have to do a system upgrade because the new program, or an existing one, will end up breaking due to dependency conflicts or library dependency breakage from old package and new breaking things.
I would not be interested in doing a full upgrade every time with arch if it weren't for this.
So wondering how point release distros work in that sense? Is it that all packages you pull from their respective package manager are 'frozen' to that particular release number so the above issues would not happen?
I suppose my main question is what is the best way to have the least intervention as possible with your system if you like a stable system and don't like updating unless absolutely necessary?
I like the philosophy of if it aint broke don't fix it but arch's philosophy seems to be welcome system breakage through incessant updating as the sooner you update and find the problem the sooner you can fix it. This seems flawed to me since most times the system breaks due to the updating itself when the system was perfectly fine before.
I do update more often now due to learning that partial upgrades break stuff so I will do a full update when I want to install a new package which might be every month or two.
How does it work with point release distros when you want to install a new package? What I mean is with arch you usually have to do a system upgrade because the new program, or an existing one, will end up breaking due to dependency conflicts or library dependency breakage from old package and new breaking things.
I would not be interested in doing a full upgrade every time with arch if it weren't for this.
So wondering how point release distros work in that sense? Is it that all packages you pull from their respective package manager are 'frozen' to that particular release number so the above issues would not happen?
I suppose my main question is what is the best way to have the least intervention as possible with your system if you like a stable system and don't like updating unless absolutely necessary?
I like the philosophy of if it aint broke don't fix it but arch's philosophy seems to be welcome system breakage through incessant updating as the sooner you update and find the problem the sooner you can fix it. This seems flawed to me since most times the system breaks due to the updating itself when the system was perfectly fine before.