Am Mittwoch 09 Januar 2008 schrieb Wolfgang Rosenauer:

Stephan Kulow wrote:

...

- Factory dependencies were broken over christmas, but should be fine again

At least not in the buildservice. It still shows expansion errors because of libtasn1.so3 :-(

The sync is still done manually, so Adrian just need to read your mail :) Greetings, Stephan -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

Am Mittwoch 09 Januar 2008 schrieb Wolfgang Rosenauer:

Stephan Kulow wrote:

...

Am Mittwoch 09 Januar 2008 schrieb Wolfgang Rosenauer:

...

Stephan Kulow wrote:

...

- Factory dependencies were broken over christmas, but should be fine again

At least not in the buildservice. It still shows expansion errors because of libtasn1.so3 :-(

The sync is still done manually, so Adrian just need to read your mail :)

Just tested to update factory:

"Es sind keine installierbaren Anbieter von libtasn1 >= 1.2 verfügbar für libtasn1-3-1.2-3.i586[Factory]"

rpm -qR libtasn1-3 libtasn1 >= 1.2

The package libtasn1 doesn't exist though.

Damn, it exists here. I wonder why one package was sycned out and another was not ;( Greetings, Stephan -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

On Wed, 9 Jan 2008, Stephan Kulow wrote:

Am Mittwoch 09 Januar 2008 schrieb Wolfgang Rosenauer:

...

Stephan Kulow wrote:

...

Am Mittwoch 09 Januar 2008 schrieb Wolfgang Rosenauer:

...

Stephan Kulow wrote:

...

- Factory dependencies were broken over christmas, but should be fine again

At least not in the buildservice. It still shows expansion errors because of libtasn1.so3 :-(

The sync is still done manually, so Adrian just need to read your mail :)

Just tested to update factory:

"Es sind keine installierbaren Anbieter von libtasn1 >= 1.2 verfügbar für libtasn1-3-1.2-3.i586[Factory]"

rpm -qR libtasn1-3 libtasn1 >= 1.2

The package libtasn1 doesn't exist though.

Damn, it exists here. I wonder why one package was sycned out and another was not ;(

libtasn1-3 was added to the list of packages going out before the weekend libtasn1 was added on monday.

Greetings, Stephan

-- with kind regards (mit freundlichem Grinsen), Ruediger Oertel (ro@novell.com,ro@suse.de,bugfinder@t-online.de) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Linux Fatou 2.6.24-rc6-git7-2-default #1 SMP 2008/01/01 21:14:48 UTC x86_64 Key fingerprint = 17DC 6553 86A7 384B 53C5 CA5C 3CE4 F2E7 23F2 B417 SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg)

2008/1/9, Stephan Kulow :

Am Mittwoch 09 Januar 2008 schrieb Ladislav Michnovič:

...

I read the Roadmap at http://en.opensuse.org/Roadmap and my humble opinion is that we should have 4 beta releases, not only 3. The point is that many bugs are reported lately and sometimes users start to test higher Beta release (not the first one). And those lately reported bugs are often not really critical so they can't be fixed in RC so they stay unfixed in final release. I know it is probably too late to talk about this for 11.0, but we can observe if my point is correct.

My humble believe is that people won't test beta2 if we do three betas and not test beta3 if we do four betas. So even if your point is valid for 3 betas, I believe it would be valid for 4 betas too.

I have to agree with Ladislav. I test openSUSE from first beta release and usually there isn't enought time to fix all the bugs. In case of openSUSE 10.3 some *crashing* bugs weren't repaired, because of lack of time I belive. -- Rafał Miłecki

On Thursday 10 January 2008 02:52:23 Rafał Miłecki wrote:

2008/1/9, Stephan Kulow :

...

Am Mittwoch 09 Januar 2008 schrieb Ladislav Michnovič:

...

I read the Roadmap at http://en.opensuse.org/Roadmap and my humble opinion is that we should have 4 beta releases, not only 3. The point is that many bugs are reported lately and sometimes users start to test higher Beta release (not the first one). And those lately reported bugs are often not really critical so they can't be fixed in RC so they stay unfixed in final release. I know it is probably too late to talk about this for 11.0, but we can observe if my point is correct.

My humble believe is that people won't test beta2 if we do three betas and not test beta3 if we do four betas. So even if your point is valid for 3 betas, I believe it would be valid for 4 betas too.

I have to agree with Ladislav. I test openSUSE from first beta release and usually there isn't enought time to fix all the bugs. In case of openSUSE 10.3 some *crashing* bugs weren't repaired, because of lack of time I belive.

I am not at all unsympathetic to Ladislav's view, but the whole question of the number of alphas and betas is a bit academic if we do not have an agreement on what an alpha and beta may contain. The openSUSE 10.3 detailed roadmap made it clear that beta1 would provide a "Feature and version freeze for the complete distribution (exception: patchlevel update of leaf packages until Aug 17)" further beta3 would provide that "only blocker and bug fixes [would be] allowed" from then on. Yet the Factory News for 10.3 lists a number of changes post beta3 that do not appear to comply with either of these limitations. It seems to me that openSUSE 10.3's 7alphas, 3 betas and 3 release candidates could best be described as a chronological sequence of 13 pre-release candidates. So maybe we should just except that openSUSE is just a testbed for the enterprise server/desktop version and drop the alpha/beta nomenclature altogether. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

On Thursday 10 January 2008 23:54:25 Stephan Kulow wrote:

Am Donnerstag 10 Januar 2008 schrieb Keith Goggin:

...

The openSUSE 10.3 detailed roadmap made it clear that beta1 would provide a "Feature and version freeze for the complete distribution (exception: patchlevel update of leaf packages until Aug 17)" further beta3 would provide that "only blocker and bug fixes [would be] allowed" from then on. Yet the Factory News for 10.3 lists a number of changes post beta3 that do not appear to comply with either of these limitations.

You disagree with making exceptions and want openSUSE to follow a strict rule written 6 months forehand without being flexible?

No, not necessarily, It would depend on the circumstances. For me it would be a matter of balancing currency and stability. But change at the last moment simply to include the very latest package and in the absence of any other extenuating circumstances probably yes. If I recall correctly you took over after the roadmap was released. Can I ask you, did you agreed with its general intention? --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

Den Wednesday 09 January 2008 15:41:48 skrev Ladislav Michnovič:

2008/1/9, Stephan Kulow :

...

- we got a roadmap for openSUSE 11.0 - next milestone alpha 1 happening next week

I read the Roadmap at http://en.opensuse.org/Roadmap and my humble opinion is that we should have 4 beta releases, not only 3. The point is that many bugs are reported lately and sometimes users start to test higher Beta release (not the first one). And those lately reported bugs are often not really critical so they can't be fixed in RC so they stay unfixed in final release. I know it is probably too late to talk about this for 11.0, but we can observe if my point is correct.

I think your point is well established, but increasing the freeze period, while good for stability, brings other problems, like the risk of the release being more outdated. It's a matter of striking the right balance. But maybe it should be considered renaming the last alpha to beta0, just for the psychological effect. Or maybe add a beta between a3 and b1. I note that compared to 10.3 schedule there's an extra week added between rc1 and internal gm, which I think is great. My greatest worry about the roadmap is the flexibility, in case of an early KDE 4.1. If we release with KDE3 as "default KDE" and KDE 4.0 as an option, Kubuntu, Mandriva and Fedora will probably kick our asses when they all presumably release with "production ready" KDE4.x as default in the fall, and openSUSE would have a hard time competing until 11.1 in early 2009. I hope openSUSE 11.0 roadmap will not be set in stone until KDE 4.1 schedule is decided. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org