Err…are you sure? I don’t think it does that by default.
Following the logic in this thread, I understand @I0F’s suggestion to mean:
yay by itself updates, so yay packagename does an update then installs the package.
This is true.
I don’t think this is the default behavior.
I’ve just checked. It doesn’t but yay -Syu packageName updates and installs.
Sure, but daily is a good middle ground. I used to update weekly until a problem on Tumbleweed required a roll back and I lost about 800 updates. I started updating daily then and have never regretted it.
Thanks for the confirmation, @dalto was right.
Didn’t they get reinstalled with the next update?
Yeah, so it was only a temporary loss, and the problem was fixed by the next day!
1 Like
Everyone needs to make their own decisions on this but the tradeoff is the more frequently you update, the greater the chance that you hit a problem. For most users, I think it is better to decrease the chance of a failure.
However, if you prefer that frequency, then do whatever you prefer. There is no wrong answer here.
1 Like
It’s failure as in throwing a dart in the dark in an unknown room. You may hit the bulleye (if there is one) but probably not. The vast majority of updates are safely painless. Granted waiting may give you the chance to read and see if more bleeding edge advocates are having issues, though you may still encounter a problem (like the infamous GRUB updates)..that just has to be dealt with whenever you face that update.
1 Like
I don’t think it increases the chances of hitting an error, whenever you update there will be new stuff released that day after all. Leaving it longer does make it harder to troubleshoot but as you say, you pays your money and makes your choice!
It absolutely does increase the chance of having an issue. Updates occasionally have issues which are usually fixed very quickly.
If you update as soon as updates are available, you are guaranteed to hit the issue. If you update once per day, the chances decrease. Once a week, they decrease even more.
However, there comes a point where waiting too long, increases the complexity of the update which increases the chance of failure.
That is why, if your goal is to decrease the chances of failure, somewhere between 1-2 weeks is the sweet spot.
However, there are other things to consider and I am not saying that everyone should update at that frequency. Everyone needs to do what is right for them. It depends on your level of expertise, personal preferences and how you manage your system.
Not really. Your chances of an error on any given update are very very slim. (I think you’ll agree with that).
However, if you aggregate a large number of them, you still have that slim chance. You may reduce the proportion of errors by delaying (because some have been corrected since), but you do not eliminate them. Given a larger bucket you have a better chance per update to catch an error per update. And it makes it harder to figure out what caused it when you have a large quantity of updates versus a smaller number.
So that being said, I agree with you, pick your poison.
I’m a serial updater, myself. I update each morning with my coffee and once again before leaving for work. Then again when I get home from work and again before bed. So, during the workweek, 4 times daily. The weekend is a different animal altogether. I do yay whenever the notion enters my geeky mind. 
1 Like
Depending on what packages you use, the chances of hitting an issue with a package are not slim over a period of time. There are issues with packages all the time.
You, personally, may not notice the issue or care about it(or have the package installed) but there are issues on a regular basis.
Keep in mind, when we talk about issues here, we aren’t only talking about issues which cause the system to be completely broken. There are less serious issues that happen all the time.
Yes, updating less frequently doesn’t make you completely immune, you can still hit issues but the chances are less, relatively speaking.
1 Like
I suppose that’s true, because it’s the nature of development that changing something often breaks something else. Unless you have very very rigorous testing.
I usually disregard this as a minor cost of improvements vs serious ground-shaking-breaking problems that everyone talks about.
yes but you are much much less likely to see bugs by updating regularly as opposed to waiting weeks to update. That’s what I am talking about here and that seems to be the issue.
I do not wait weeks to update, I update 1x/week. And to quote Dalto
That’s fine it is your system, only I am not gonna quote anyone,because through the years I read a few times the advice that you should update before installing something no matter what your update routine is. And in the end by not doing that you started this thread asking for help. Just some food for thoughts.
1 Like
If you would have followed the thread you would have read that I stated very clearly and beyond a shade of doubt that I had forgotten update.
In other words, I did NOT CHOOSE to not update. I never questioned advice from others more knowledgeable than me to update, on the contrary, I take their word for it.
So, you have not provided and food for thoughts because you misunderstood the starting point.
And whether you quote others or not is your choice, nobody has asked you to do so.
1 Like
The question of what is the right frequency to update on Archlinux is a Dead Horse we keep beating. I am obsessed with updates. Sick number of times a day. If there aren’t any, to remedy my anxiety I update from testing repo.That’s me. To each their own!
I will agree, the horse is dead and should be headed to the glue factory.
Your (plural, not directed at Cactux) mileage on the dead horse will vary.