Hello, an addendum for clarification to avoid misunderstandings: On Sep 29 09:58 Johannes Meixner wrote:

On Sep 28 18:45 Greg Freemyer wrote (excerpt):

...

On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 5:46 AM, Johannes Meixner wrote: ...

...

(provided I understand correctly how Leap is meant). ... The core of SLE is used and is meant to provide a level of stability in the core typically reserved for enterprise use. ... The majority (at least 75%) of the Leap packages will come from factory and meet the traditional openSUSE end-user use case.

I can no longer understand how Leap is meant.

For example I think I noticed that Leap may get a newer kernel. If this is true, the kernel is not "core". Strange...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolpertinger

The newer kernel in Leap is actually a bad/wrong example and I even understand why a distribution that is intended to run on nowadays hardware requires nowadays hardware drivers which means first and foremost a nowadays kernel. But I cannot imagine that it can work well in general when a distribution is made of 25% old packages together with 75% new packages. I can understand openSUSE Tumbleweed: A (hopefully) consistent set of newest packages. I can understand SUSE Linux Enterprise: A tested consistent set of well known (a.k.a. "old") packages. But currently I cannot imagine how to mix up both successfully. Of course on a careful manual case by case base one could perhaps combine almost any packages into a successful distribution. What I mainly care about are resources (my limited time): I had the (apparently) false assumption that basically Leap is SLE12 (except a few exceptions - like the kerenel) so that bug reports for Leap are the same as for SLE12 so that I could maintain my packages in Leap in addition to SLE12 without noticeable additional effort.

From what I learned now it seems maintaining my packages in Leap could become a noticeable amount of additional effort.

Regardless that my packages in Leap are the same as in SLE12 (except one intentional exception: "rear") I might get bug reports that are unique for Leap because my "old" packages in Leap together with the 75% new packages from Factory may result new issues. I feel unhappy about possible issues in Leap that are neither reproducible in SLE12 nor in Factory/Tumbleweed. I fear that I never ever find sufficient time to actually work on such issues. Obviously my primary interest is SLE ("he who pays the piper calls the tone") and my secondary interest is Factory/Tumbleweed which is a direct consequence from my primary interest because I need to know how the newest stuff works to be prepared for the next SLE release. But currently I do not see a reason why Leap (as mix up of 25% SLE and 75% Factory) should be of interest for me because I do not see what benefit for SLE I get from Leap. In contrast if Leap would be basically identical to SLE12 (except a few very specific exceptions) so that basically all bug reports for Leap are also valid for SLE, I would have a very valuable benefit for SLE from Leap because I could know in advance about issues in SLE before a SLE customer submits a possible urgent bug report. Perhaps I am currently a bit overanxious and in practice everything works much better - time will tell... Kind Regards Johannes Meixner -- SUSE LINUX GmbH - GF: Felix Imendoerffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton - HRB 21284 (AG Nuernberg) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org