On 03/22/2017 06:18 PM, Ludwig Nussel wrote:
Wolfgang Rosenauer wrote:
I'm pretty sure that SLE has openldap as well. How and who
would deal with that component in SLE and why is there a disconnect
between SLE and Leap there? Or is there none and SLE is broken the same
way? (I doubt that.)
Unfortunately in this specific case I don't have records as to why
we accepted the deviation :-( Nowadays the leaper bot would leave a
comment and warn already.
Why don't we use SLE as is? We want an LTS distro! Again and again
single users are able to break it...
We need written rules. IMO It should be really really really difficult
for a package maintainer to update his package in Leap. In case his
update breaks any other package, then the cause should be reverted
> IMHO we as a project should try everything to
avoid that or mitigate
> such situations. Unresponsive maintainers can always happen
> unfortunately for many reasons.
IMO we should finally start to revert things which break other things.
For example the texlive update in 42.3 ... Please revert it! Lets make
an example. Let's scare away all the users and maintainers who always
wants the newest stuff. Tumbleweed is made for them.
Unfortunately I don't believe that Leap will ever be LTS-like. Maybe we
should better stop wasting time with Leap and fork an Evergreen from
42.2, following until EOL and then pulling from SLE-12 updates only.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner(a)opensuse.org