I know, but due to storage constraints I can only retain a history of one full backup. so I cannot revert the december stable update that was delivered in three part over several weeks, but only the latest part which would not fix all the issues I am experienciing with this poorly tested and delivered update.I guess the alternative would be to buy a dedicated external drive for upgrade backups, but I’m afraid it would grow old fast to have to dedicate a full working day to each manjaro upgrade because they are expected to break many things when applied.
another option would be to wipe the system and change the filesystem for one that supports snapshot, but this would require several days to a full week to achieve and may fail due to the limited space on the machine. I cannot afford to dedicate so much time away from work to this experimentation in the foreseeable future but I will keep the idea for later.
right if the so-called stable updates could actually be stable as they used to be, this would be great.
this could be helpful to me, could you point me to some documentation to use that ?
IIRC this is an attempt to duplicate Apple Time Machine on Linux, but I am unsure I can use this if it requires much storage space as this the issue currently preventing me from being able to back up more that one system update at a time.
well the other part being that the stable updates have becomed much larger and not delivered as often as they used to, but I have no power over this part.
My advice: familiarize yourself with btrfs. Timeshift or Snapper are just the GUIs that are ultimately used. The underlying system is what really matters.
You can try it free, it’s in Manjaro repositories. As Timeshift is a widely used system backup application, there are lots of info about Timeshift everywhere. You can see here the usage (min. 5:40):
Using is so easy. Press Create button to make a snapshot and Restore to revert to a previous point. As this only makes snapshots of your system, backup are smaller than using other tools like Clonezilla. Better if snapshots are not in the system disk.
After the last update, I got that .pacnew as well and was wondering if I should apply it since on the existing one every line was commented out? so you say it’s perfectly safe to apply the changes?
The only other .pacnew I got for pacman.conf
The current pacman.conf
[core]
Remove Siglevel = PackageRequired
Include = /etc/pacman.d/mirrorlist
same for 'extra' and 'multilib'
```
while the .pacnew file has the Siglevel removed
```
[core]
Include = /etc/pacman.d/mirrorlist
```
Should I apply that change?
You can replace fortran.
For pacman:
If you want advise with pacnews please post both files, complete.
Generally speaking, if you get a pacnew, you have customized something.
Otherwise yes, this is the new default. The signature part is actually moved above.
Take a look in pacman.conf.pacnew a few lines above the ones you quote. You’ll see this:
# By default, pacman accepts packages signed by keys that its local keyring
# trusts (see pacman-key and its man page), as well as unsigned packages.
SigLevel = Required DatabaseOptional
LocalFileSigLevel = Optional
#RemoteFileSigLevel = Required
In new pacman.conf file the repository options are global, not individual as before, and you can set different options for local and repository files. But it’s not mandatory; you can keep the settings as before.
