On 3/11/21 5:44 PM, Felix Miata wrote:

ddemaio composed on 2021-03-11 15:13 (UTC+0100):

...

Both major versions of Leap 42 and 15 were supported more than 36 months.

This reads as though 15 is no longer supported. I was actually thinking this sentence should be deleted, but think it might be important for background knowledge to new users. Do you think it's worth mentioning for context? Does this sentence sound better:

The major version of Leap 42 was supported more than 36 months. The current major version of Leap 15 goes well beyond 36 months of security and maintenance support as stated above. v/r Doug

On Fri, Mar 12, 2021, at 07:51, Felix Miata wrote:

ddemaio composed on 2021-03-12 07:22 (UTC+0100):

...

Felix Miata wrote:

...

...

ddemaio composed on 2021-03-11 15:13 (UTC+0100):

...

...

...

Both major versions of Leap 42 and 15 were supported more than 36 months.

...

...

This reads as though 15 is no longer supported.

...

I was actually thinking this sentence should be deleted, but think it might be important for background knowledge to new users. Do you think it's worth mentioning for context? Does this sentence sound better:

...

The major version of Leap 42 was supported more than 36 months. The current major version of Leap 15 goes well beyond 36 months of security and maintenance support as stated above.

The previous major version of Leap, 42, was supported more than 36 months, while the current major version of Leap, 15, now stands well beyond 36 months of security and maintenance support as stated above.

Just a clarification for me. What do you mean with a major version? Isn't that (1) 15.0 itself and is 15.0 still getting updates and patches, or (2) do you get those updates and patches if you've upgraded to 15.1 and later to 15.2? As when I look at SLE [1] I see it as (2), not as (1), while (1) seems implied with the statement above. [1] https://documentation.suse.com/sles/15-SP1/html/SLES-all/images/new-maintena... from https://documentation.suse.com/sles/15-SP1/html/SLES-all/cha-upgrade-backgro...

-- Evolution as taught in public schools, like religion, is based on faith, not on science.

Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!

Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/

On 12/03/2021 08.46, Syds Bearda wrote:

On Fri, Mar 12, 2021, at 07:51, Felix Miata wrote:

...

ddemaio composed on 2021-03-12 07:22 (UTC+0100):

...

The previous major version of Leap, 42, was supported more than 36 months, while the current major version of Leap, 15, now stands well beyond 36 months of security and maintenance support as stated above.

Just a clarification for me. What do you mean with a major version? Isn't that (1) 15.0 itself and is 15.0 still getting updates and patches, or (2) do you get those updates and patches if you've upgraded to 15.1 and later to 15.2?

Before Leap openSUSE did not have major/minor versions. Leap has major and minor versions. The number before the dot is the major version number, and the number after it is the minor. So 42.*, 15.* are major versions. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 15.2 x86_64 at Telcontar)

On 12/03/2021 11.12, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:

On Fri 2021-03-12, Carlos E. R. wrote:

...

Before Leap openSUSE did not have major/minor versions.

Pardon me?

https://www.suse.com/releasenotes/i386/openSUSE/10.3/RELEASE-NOTES.en.html dates back to 2007.

So? 9.3 was a major, 10.0 was a major, 10.1 was a major, 10.2 another major, 10.3 another major, 11.0 another major... the separation between 10.3 and 11.0 was the same as between 10.1 and 10.2. The numbers were irrelevant, the big number changed arbitrarily and did not denote a major change. That was the policy before Leap. There was no distinction between major or minor. The policy was described as openSUSE not having major.minor versions and had to be explained to newcommers that were afraid of doing an update from 9.3 to 10.0, but not from 10.0 to 10.1. Some people thought that odd numbers were devel, even numbers were stable.

...

So [...] 15.* are major versions.

Yes.

openSUSE Leap 15 is the major version in sync with SUSE Linux Enterprise 15; so far minor versions (or point releases) have aligned with service packs there, so Leap 15.2 <-> SLE 15 SP2, Leap 15.2 <-> SLE 15 SP2,...

Correct. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 15.2 x86_64 at Telcontar)

On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 10:34:02AM +0100, Carlos E. R. wrote:

Before Leap openSUSE did not have major/minor versions. Leap has major and minor versions. The number before the dot is the major version number, and the number after it is the minor.

So 42.*, 15.* are major versions.

I would go even further than that. Prior to 15.2, all the binaries were rebuild from sources prior to being included with the distribution, so prior to this binary merge from SLE, the binaries could not be relied upon to be ABI stable. Only now can users rely that ABI stability is maintained between different Leap versions as long as the binary remains the same. So I would say that all versions of Leap prior to 15.2 were all major releases and were not really ABI compatible. Today, we can at least say that ABI compatibility is maintained between these minor releases. Well, at least for some core packages. - Adam

On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 02:24:28PM +0100, Stephan Kulow wrote:

Am 12.03.21 um 14:01 schrieb Adam Majer:

...

So I would say that all versions of Leap prior to 15.2 were all major releases and were not really ABI compatible. Today, we can at least say that ABI compatibility is maintained between these minor releases. Well, at least for some core packages.

Not sure how you conclude that. We can easily break ABI with a binary update - just as we can keep it with recompiled sources. Your statement sounds like FUD to me.

Not sure about the FUD here. Once the underlying dependencies are changed, the ABI interface of components on top can change too, sometimes in unexpected manner. This is why we don't build packages in SLE 15.3 when we want to use them in 15.2 even if the sources are the same. (and especially since we don't track symbol versions like Debian does) The act of rebuilding on a new system (eg. updated systemd, etc), can result in things that are no longer compatible in the old environment. And sometimes, things may not even be compatible with the old environment. But yes, depends on the piece of software. Anyway, with the binary sharing, if there is ABI issue between minor version, at least users can complain without being dismissed as "Leap rebuild issue". For me that would be one main advantage of the binary sharing. - Adam

On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 6:31 PM Simon Lees wrote:

On 3/13/21 12:34 AM, Adam Majer wrote:

...

On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 02:24:28PM +0100, Stephan Kulow wrote:

...

Am 12.03.21 um 14:01 schrieb Adam Majer:

...

So I would say that all versions of Leap prior to 15.2 were all major releases and were not really ABI compatible. Today, we can at least say that ABI compatibility is maintained between these minor releases. Well, at least for some core packages.

Not sure how you conclude that. We can easily break ABI with a binary update - just as we can keep it with recompiled sources. Your statement sounds like FUD to me.

Not sure about the FUD here. Once the underlying dependencies are changed, the ABI interface of components on top can change too, sometimes in unexpected manner. This is why we don't build packages in SLE 15.3 when we want to use them in 15.2 even if the sources are the same. (and especially since we don't track symbol versions like Debian does)

Symbol versioning is tracked in RPM systems too, we express it as auto-generated dependencies. Debian does not expose that information beyond the build of the package itself, so third parties cannot directly depend on that "contract", and indeed Debian does not guarantee this.

...

The act of rebuilding on a new system (eg. updated systemd, etc), can result in things that are no longer compatible in the old environment. And sometimes, things may not even be compatible with the old environment.

But yes, depends on the piece of software.

True that did happen very occasionally but when it did it was treated as a critical bug and reverted. Packages shouldn't be changing in a way that cause other packages to break ABI. So yes we say that we keep it between minor versions and us failing to do so is treated as a bug.

We're doing it in a very major way with the glibc update happening in 15.3 (*sigh*). -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!

On Mon, 2021-08-02 at 08:09 -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:

On Mon, Aug 2, 2021 at 5:17 AM Gerald Pfeifer wrote:

...

On Thu 2021-03-11, ddemaio wrote:

...

There were several comments on reddit that can be summarized as there is a lack of clear information on how long the lifecycle of Leap 15.x will be going forward. When the info on https://en.opensuse.org/Lifetime was originally written, there was some clarity on major versions lasting a minimum of 36 months. We know Leap 42 and 15 exceeded that lifecycle. It looks like we're at a point where we evolved and need to provide a bit more clarity for people based on the reddit comments

Thanks for raising and addressing this, Doug and marketing team!

...

I propose we change the lifecycle page to include the following sentences and include the info in the marketing of Leap 15.3 and beyond (for the foreseeable future):

Leap *Major Release* (15.x) extends maintenance and support until a successor. At present, a successor has not been declared; Leap 15's lifecycle fully aligns with SUSE Linux Enterprise. There is a projection as of March 2021 that Leap 15 will extend to Leap 15.5. Both major versions of Leap 42 and 15 were supported more than 36 months.

Any thoughts, changes, removals or additions to the above sentences.

How about putting in a (minimum) projected number for Leap 15.x?

With Leap 15.0 in 2018 and Leap 15.4 planned for 2022 we're looking at 4 years + 18 months = 5.5 years at a minimum for the 15.x series.

That would be an even stronger message, wouldn't it?

My understanding is that we're going to have 15.5, so that makes it 7.5 years, no?

There will be 15.5. What we don't know is if there will be 15.6 and if so, will it be in parallel with something "else". I think the commitment to have Leap 15.5 is certain.

On 8/3/21 5:06 AM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:

On Mon 2021-08-02, Lubos Kocman wrote:

...

...

My understanding is that we're going to have 15.5, so that makes it 7.5 years, no? There will be 15.5. What we don't know is if there will be 15.6 and if so, will it be in parallel with something "else".

I think the commitment to have Leap 15.5 is certain.

Well, that makes it even stronger of a message than I had initially wondered about. :-)

Who can adjust the Lifecycle wiki accordingly?

We could, but while we know there will be a 15.5 what i'm not sure we know is whether there will be a 16.5 and given that this page should be our long term commitment I don't think we should be saying 7.5 years now then get half way through the Leap 16 cycle and decide to drop it back to 4.5 years. Unfortunately as a project we don't get to make decisions on these things until we have a fair idea of what SUSE maybe doing. Cheers -- Simon Lees (Simotek) http://simotek.net Emergency Update Team keybase.io/simotek SUSE Linux Adelaide Australia, UTC+10:30 GPG Fingerprint: 5B87 DB9D 88DC F606 E489 CEC5 0922 C246 02F0 014B

On 03/08/2021 03.49, Simon Lees wrote:

On 8/3/21 5:06 AM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:

...

On Mon 2021-08-02, Lubos Kocman wrote:

...

...

My understanding is that we're going to have 15.5, so that makes it 7.5 years, no? There will be 15.5. What we don't know is if there will be 15.6 and if so, will it be in parallel with something "else".

I think the commitment to have Leap 15.5 is certain.

Well, that makes it even stronger of a message than I had initially wondered about. :-)

Who can adjust the Lifecycle wiki accordingly?

We could, but while we know there will be a 15.5 what i'm not sure we know is whether there will be a 16.5 and given that this page should be our long term commitment I don't think we should be saying 7.5 years now then get half way through the Leap 16 cycle and decide to drop it back to 4.5 years. Unfortunately as a project we don't get to make decisions on these things until we have a fair idea of what SUSE maybe doing.

Well, just write that. That there will be a a 15.5, but we don't know if there will be a 16.5 because we don't make that decision, but that we expect there will be at least a .3 and sometimes up to .6 Write the truth. Just find the best wording. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from oS Leap 15.2 x86_64 (Minas Tirith))

On Mon, 2021-08-02 at 21:36 +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:

On Mon 2021-08-02, Lubos Kocman wrote:

...

...

My understanding is that we're going to have 15.5, so that makes it 7.5 years, no? There will be 15.5. What we don't know is if there will be 15.6 and if so, will it be in parallel with something "else".

I think the commitment to have Leap 15.5 is certain.

Well, that makes it even stronger of a message than I had initially wondered about. :-)

Who can adjust the Lifecycle wiki accordingly? All set, on Monday.

Thanks, Gerald