On 29. 11. 22, 10:50, Richard Biener wrote:
Ah, I was so dumb and now I see -- it's only politics in it. And it affects community-based distro. Yes, I understand the SUSE's POV -- to sell, sell, sell. I also know, that managers always affected openSUSE in some manner. At least indirectly by e.g. providing HW, manpower etc. But this is sort of different. This appears to be a non-technical decision applied to _open_SUSE for reasons I still don't follow. And as a workaround, it seems it will result in building Tumbleweed exactly twice. Bah. OK.
Yep, the original -v3 decision was technical, the backtracking was political (openSUSE folks complained). Sticking to -v2 instead of plain x86-64 is then political as well.
Yes, -v3 would actually very make technical sense for ALP.
IMHO the mistake was to backtrack to -v2 for ALP.
Agreed.
I didn't have a nice solution for the conflict with Factory-First or ALP and Leap sharing binary packages though.
Nice solution? Ignore the policy in this regards! Sometimes policies need to be lifted. After all, the same way it was already done for TW's full-stack ix86 long time ago. It wasn't abandoned when Leap's was. Note that I specifically named TW. I'm not sure we can/will build Leap and ALP differently. At least it was repeated many times, that ALP and Leap won't share this decision (I remember Coolo was one of the ones repeatedly noting this). -- js suse labs