[opensuse-factory] How to develop the baby
Hi, I have a new topic ;) As the bootstraping of openSUSE:42 is almost done (already looking forward to do the same from scratch with openSUSE:$NEWNAME) I wonder how we go from there. I would like simple (to enforce) submission rules. So submission from openSUSE:Factory or SUSE:SLE-12:Update only (:Update overshadows SLE-12:GA, so it has all sle12 packages). Then we would test compile the submissions in a staging project light (in IRC we did some brain storming and Staging:adi:<NR> was the best suggestion so far) to see if the submitted packages compile in 42 and accept. For practicability I would accept everyone submitting packages he cares about to be in 42 and feels able to do security updates for - but I would suggest the TW maintainers of the packages are informed and I'll decline every submission I consider abuse. And remember 42 is maintained for longer, so if the software is already out of maintenance now, better don't submit it. Does that sound fair? Greetings, Stephan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
Quoting Stephan Kulow <coolo@suse.de>:
I think this is a fair 'first rule', but I can imagine exceptions, like 'just changed build flags', changed feature set which we would want in :42, but the package in TW might have progressed much more than just that. Shouldn't the package from SUSE:SLE-12:Update be 'automatically' considered for :42? I guess a bot submitting those changes should do as well (if something was good for SLE, it should be good for :42 - unless it reverts something that moved already a bit further ahead) As a practical example for where an exception of submissions only from TW might be needed: Xorg in :42 is currently at version 1.15.2, Tumbleweed is at 1.17.1 yet, I need X configured with --enable-systemd-logind; this corresponds to Submit request https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/287362 that was done against TW 4 months ago. Alternatively, of course, the SLE package might receive an 'update' with the new build flags; but that sounds very unrealistic as an update. Sadly, with OBS, it is not possible to 'cherry pick' such changes, so whoever is going to submit that fix for TW needs to have a way to except from 'only submissions from openSUSE:Factory' are allowed. And I'm sure there are more such cases where we'd see small variations, but the TW version diverged too much already. Cheers, Dominiqu -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 07/03/2015 05:37 AM, Dominique Leuenberger a.k.a. Dimstar wrote:
I agree. It appears that we'd need some kind of easily identifiable marker in the GUI and on the command line output that tells us something about the origin of the package. Otherwise one will have to dig around or depend on custom scripts that are known to one or two people. If we stick with X as the example. Maybe the decision is made that X from TW is a better fit for Leap then everyone should be able to look at the package in OBS either WEB UI or via osc command and immediately get information about the package origin, TW in this case. If the source of a package originates from SLE_12:Updates it should also be evident. Later, Robert - -- Robert Schweikert MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU Public Cloud Architect LINUX rjschwei@suse.com IRC: robjo -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVmm0lAAoJEE4FgL32d2UkSFcH/2sYtHUxHfnThrHyWjAv5lfD N2b5FLFMVPJD6vY0PFPAgFtoIgnHXgSKLFKmVadO/ywQmYBwRFuwCq+hJPIMbFH1 OGX5MxjIpX0OV0duRw/zme8zNahBO/JTYwUoyXgQdWGNjx5C4BaqiJOk46V2UgJX egS5A6QfWwQKXeYvNehGDtOme3F4KLpC/apVDH6MUH/1+54ePlPvJVncbgGGJkpK V3EBBuobArNQtfA5GrREA8tBngmUELEUSevv5IW66wAmqfgJv4InA6JffB6W3nj8 /1/S535VIPDdRRZZATwRlmcUzi3UrMnd+DgX9nD/H+efJ56hkh8X029wh0fkG0M= =drvH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
Hi, I guess I didn't pay too much attention until now: Do I understand right that the next openSUSE enduser desktop release will be based on the latest SLES (which I'd understand to be SLES12)? Does this mean that the next openSUSE enduser desktop release in some parts will use older components than the current openSUSE 13.2 (for example the kernel)? All in all I hope this article is "full of sh*t": http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/OpenSuse-setzt-mit-42-auf-Unterbau-vo... The article basically doesn't make "42" look very good. Less drivers, older software, less software than the current 13.2. Yes, I do realize, there's still a lot of time to work on "the next one"... Cheers Mathias Am 03.07.2015 um 11:13 schrieb Stephan Kulow:
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 07/03/2015 05:50 AM, Mathias Homann wrote:
Hi,
I guess I didn't pay too much attention until now:
Well that is a bit of a problem at this point in the discussion.
Yes, not necessarily, and no. If one just looks at the version number (kernel for example) then the answer is yes, for gcc the answer is no. However, if one cares about what is actually inside the package then the answer is not necessarily. As I pointed out in one e-mail the kernel carries some 5000+ patches. Many of those backport features from kernels with a version number that is greater than the version number of the kernel that is in openSUSE 13.2. Other parts of the kernel are older. What is not yet clear is how things that are not of interest to SUSE for SLE would get backported. As Leap has an older kernel base backporting does become more difficult as time passes. Anyway, we all have to see how this plays out, there are many unanswered questions that will only get answered as Leap develops and we'll see how the SLE sources evolve. Maybe SUSE will deliver new kernel sources every other service pack and maybe SUSE will manage to deliver a new service pack every year. No one knows at this point, no announcements or commitments have been made.
All in all I hope this article is "full of sh*t": http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/OpenSuse-setzt-mit-42-auf-Unter
bau-von-Suse-Linux-Enterprise-2731743.html
The article basically doesn't make "42" look very good. Less drivers, older software, less software than the current 13.2.
Well if one just looks at the version number that is certainly the conclusion one can draw. However, just a bit below the surface a different picture presents itself. How to communicate this will certainly be an interesting challenge for the marketing and messaging of Leap. However, this discussion is really way of topic and we should stop this part of the thread. Later, Robert - -- Robert Schweikert MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU Public Cloud Architect LINUX rjschwei@suse.com IRC: robjo -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVmnCJAAoJEE4FgL32d2Uk9b4IAKFgYxBGUQNvy8N0wsV9v7qO OZuiqUAZkNiwSNRDgy4w1pSVDrQw6c8kiaY1enffsjfdJWJc/PeEAk9SsN5iNM6f 5ISmmBQE78AmWBoV3OMiPC7/vvPo8lTCY0pi4CfaJp1z4b1TrhQhzor0edfTpsoA DpNU8RHr0Yw2sQV5zjc4XWnMq6hRsMjSNBe0tNMknTsXbR8ROm8EfKHnmEHwItRe UoRaAoIN3VimlLNaqPWuGZy7/ApfpJc9kINXwTJDtc+voPegiH1Oogn42A9LaYC6 CQd5NICHBFt2gr35Iej8weEakB70z4DQI1m2/gcqY8ysPtShVC+p+akTP8QOj8E= =9r1R -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
At Mon, 06 Jul 2015 08:11:53 -0400, Robert Schweikert wrote:
Well, speaking of kernel, the biggest problem to take SLE12 version is the lack of hardware support, particularly the graphics. If you have a laptop younger than two or three years old, you have little chance to make it running with 42 in native graphics. Similarly, most of new WiFi chips won't work with 42. Takashi -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On 6 July 2015 at 14:55, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> wrote:
How hard would it be to backport fixes to resolve that? Surely SUSE need to also get SLED 12 working on hardware that new? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
At Mon, 6 Jul 2015 15:01:44 +0200, Richard Brown wrote:
Very hard. It'll need yet another (literally) thousands patches. And it breaks kABI that is one of the most important points in SLE kernel.
Surely SUSE need to also get SLED 12 working on hardware that new?
I'd like to avoid to answer this question, next please! :) Takashi -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
Am 06.07.2015 um 15:01 schrieb Richard Brown:
How many SLED subscriptions have been sold? Since probably nobody is really using it, no backports are needed. I would personally suggest to just always use Kernel:Stable for the openSUSE release. The current Kernel is supposed to be stable. And kernel hackers (not only SUSE's kernel hackers) will support us. After it is known that we (as openSUSE community) are not able to maintain our own kernel version (see the mess that 13.2 is), and we probably don't have the manpower to make the SLES12 kernel work well for our target audience, we should just use resort to using always the latest upstream version. -- Stefan Seyfried "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." -- Richard Feynman -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
At Tue, 07 Jul 2015 10:20:38 +0200, Stefan Seyfried wrote:
Yeah, the latest and greatest kernel was what I wished for 13.2. But I know that people have concerns about stability by this model. And indeed the regressions can't be zero. Richard and I chatted yesterday shortly after my post, and we thought of an alternative: stick with a stable kernel version, preferably a long-time support kernel. For example, we keep the kernel based on 4.1.x for some time. Even with this model, it remains as an open question whether we switch to yet another kernel some time later. And when and which version. IMO, it depends on the release schedule, and we can pick up the latest LTS kernel at that time. Takashi -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
At Tue, 7 Jul 2015 12:13:20 +0200 (CEST), Jan Engelhardt wrote:
I meant the status after that, say, in 2016 or 2017. Should we keep using 4.1.x? Of course, it's not a thing to be decided now, but discussing beforehand is always useful. Takashi -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Tuesday 2015-07-07 12:41, Takashi Iwai wrote:
Probably not, as (i) 4.1 LTS would then be about a third through the lifetime that I predict for it, and we need the LTS's remaining life for the remainder of Leap 42.1. (ii) a new LTS branch will likely have been started that would be more suitable for 42.2/42.3. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On 7 July 2015 at 12:56, Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@inai.de> wrote:
My suggestion would be to evaluate which kernel makes sense for each release I don't think it makes sense to set out any hard rules at this point, lets keep Leap relatively flexible we know what we're trying to achieve so I don't think we have to worry too much about having all the answers for everything many years from now We know the SLE Kernel has concerns regarding current hardware right now, moving the Kernel to 4.1.x should resolve that for at least the next year, then we'll have 42.2 to worry about. If we start with Kernel 4.1.x for Leap 42.1 I can see the following options for 42.2 (These are listed in order of my personal preference) 1. Whatever Kernel is in SLE 12 SP2 (Yes, SUSE are considering upgrading the Kernel for SLE 12 SP2) 2. No Change from 42.1 - ie. Kernel 4.1.x (Assuming it is LTS) 3. Latest Stable/LTS Kernel 4. No Change from 42.1 - ie. Kernel 4.1.x (Even if it isn't LTS) I don't think we can make a decision as to which of those 4 options until we're much closer to 42.2. This order is the kind of matrix I'd likely also keep to for 42.3. I think it hits the balance between being conservative and stable and yet also moving the Kernel with the times at a sane and sensible pace. (and for 43.0 the concern is pointless, as we'd expect Tumbleweed's Kernel at that time) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Mon, July 6, 2015 14:55, Takashi Iwai wrote:
exactly my point... by the way, how is upgrading from 13.2 to Leap supposed to work? 13.2 is running a way newer kernel than what leap looks to be running... ----------------------------------------- This email was sent using SquirrelMail. "Webmail for nuts!" http://squirrelmail.org/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On 7 July 2015 at 13:13, Mathias Homann <Mathias.Homann@opensuse.org> wrote:
exactly my point... by the way, how is upgrading from 13.2 to Leap supposed to work? 13.2 is running a way newer kernel than what leap looks to be running...
So far, in all my tests, zypper dup works surprisingly well ;) If it aint broke.... -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 2015-07-07 13:22, Richard Brown wrote:
What with the DVD? Boot the DVD, choose upgrade? AKA offline system upgrade? Or traditional upgrade, since ever? Upgrade from 13.1 (Evergreen) and 13.2 have both to be considered. - -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" (Minas Tirith)) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAlWbt5QACgkQja8UbcUWM1z8VgEAniY13L0QfLOId7AWRgZ54kgz t4dFi8hLruSTRJ8wenIA/2djfUz+d0znzT+oYvEQPFhtaJ6+8I6UMlUWw61IBGsB =1aqB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Tue, 2015-07-07 at 13:27 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote:
So far, I've actually been doing tests with 13.2 to SLED/S 12, specifically to address the concerns raised here about the Kernel, XFS, etc I've done them using DVD, offline upgrade and with zypper dup Things I expected to break (like XFS complaining about the change in kernel version) did not happen, which is why I've been telling people that I think many of the concerns regarding the kernel version are not nearly as serious as they think.
Upgrade from 13.1 (Evergreen) and 13.2 have both to be considered.
Do you have a look at what we do in openQA for Tumbleweed? For Leap 42.1 we will be doing at least the same before any release, so that will mean, _at the very least_ Offline Upgrade (From DVD) from 13.1 with gnome Offline Upgrade (From DVD) from 13.1 with kde Offline Upgrade (From DVD) from 13.2 zypper dup Upgrade from 13.1 with gnome zypper dup Upgrade from 13.1 with kde zypper dup Upgrade from 13.2 We'll probably throw a few extra scenarios in that for the fun of it... 'upgrading from SLES 12' would be interesting to see ;) Regards, Richard -- Richard Brown Technical Lead - openQA openSUSE Chairman Phone +4991174053-361 SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, D-90409 Nuernberg GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Dilip Upmanyu, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 2015-07-07 13:40, Richard Brown wrote:
On Tue, 2015-07-07 at 13:27 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote:
Good :-)
Not recently, no.
zypper dup across two releases is actually tested? This is totally new to me. The official documentation web page says that it is not supported at all, and that's what we have been saying people for years. Otherwise, I'm very glad that all those scenarios are tested.
We'll probably throw a few extra scenarios in that for the fun of it... 'upgrading from SLES 12' would be interesting to see ;)
Quite. - -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" (Minas Tirith)) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAlWb2c8ACgkQja8UbcUWM1yWwgD/VDJHFmM+glKhwIhDobb8XEaI zAfW3p8yxjruYNR+06QBAII6Ylat5WPnvLh3ARhPjYI0oZ8W6vJOkU+ES6byvmHf =fli9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
* Stephan Kulow <coolo@suse.de> [2015-07-03 11:13]:
Why should package submission be optional, why not take everything that is in Factory and not yet in:42? It has always been the deal that by submitting a package to Factory one implicitly agrees to maitain it for supported releases as well. In the past releases also were maintained for longer, after that the Evergreen approach also worked well for 11.4. Why should that be any different now? Having both less drivers and less packages just makes it less and less attractive.
And remember 42 is maintained for longer, so if the software is already out of maintenance now, better don't submit it.
How's that any different from the situation we had with Evergreen? And sooner or later you'll run into the issue anyway that you can't update to the latest KDE, GNOME, Xfce because systemd, upower, GTK, Qt etc. are too old. -- Guido Berhoerster -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
* Stephan Kulow <coolo@suse.de> [2015-07-03 13:47]:
I am already maintaining more than 100 packages, that just isn't feasible. Besides, having to put more work into an inferior product which is less useful to me and many others is not motivating either. So this will be the end of my involvement with openSUSE, putting a frequently cited mantra a bit differently, I'll leave that work to those who feel entitled to decide. -- Guido Berhoerster -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
Le vendredi 03 juillet 2015 à 12:16 +0200, Guido Berhoerster a écrit :
In general, it could be a problem. But the truth is, for desktop, it shouldn't be: - desktops only rely on logind, which has been fairly stable API wise: no new API has been added there for quite a while: there is no need for a new systemd - We were careful to ship with upower 0.99.1 on SLE12 (which is identical to 1.0, API wise), because we knew it would better to have the latest API available for SLE12 lifecycle. So, no issue there either. - GTK3 is "part" of GNOME and API/ABI backward compatible, so upgrading it (and glib2) won't be a problem. When I did some experiments 6 months ago to try to bring up GNOME 3.14 on top of SLE12, it didn't cause any issue. - Qt5 is probably in the same situation as GTK3: it is supposed to be API and ABI compatible (except for private API, which shouldn't be used anyway). -- Frederic Crozat Enterprise Desktop Release Manager SUSE -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 07/03/2015 06:16 AM, Guido Berhoerster wrote:
Well, Leap will probably at some point require back porting and it is maintained for longer than the current Factory based snapshots. Thus I think an explicit agreement to this by a package maintainer is warranted. The explicit agreement is that the maintainer submits to Leap . With the change in model I think that is a reasonable approach. As a maintainer I would complain if I automatically would get signed up to follow the Leap model. This is a situation where asking is definitely very important, IMHO. Later, Robert - -- Robert Schweikert MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU Public Cloud Architect LINUX rjschwei@suse.com IRC: robjo -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVmnQ/AAoJEE4FgL32d2UkotcIAJtEmxRcdl862Uf78s6dmFqi 8xXBmJAj3AnZ7/HZZwIOd6VWTX5u6tTrsIb4BmqXoipbShXMYvO8hMMBRAvFbsi9 M/2pBSzemzjGvMCY82PaWTkx213pPyPdRQDgsPXO+U2o52dt4eBL6J2X3lk1zi9f VdTjZueNsOf8EoTQMWDXogBB2yk7HLzbgW6cJFd5ZjiyF0YUq6PhEHB+Y+BVyPbq 72iTSU5UKrfq3uO8twTpWsO5BwBekB0UZIQfA742tCN+exkFpR0EAhK/aUo+Ur8d Xf7o6TaZf/3+UZCDbrwZIV3RptpCp1YPm41RjHZUdbHXy+qTOPDalr+sfAUGafQ= =0tT7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On 06.07.2015 14:27, Robert Schweikert wrote:
So if more people feel we should scale up 42 to TW's dimension, we need a group of people: a) trying to mass build Factory packages against 42 and b) if they fail to build, do some %if magic and submit to devel project c) if they are fine, inform the maintainers about the Leap inclusion. I guess most would be fine with that. In case of a veto, we have to find alternatives - either living without the package or without the maintainer But as I mentioned before, we can't clone Factory as is. Hands up anyone? Greetings, Stephan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 07/06/2015 08:44 AM, Stephan Kulow wrote:
Correct, I also didn't commit to maintain my packages in Evergreen. I think the expectations for Leap are different. In our "based on :Factory" model the following was implied: - - commit to :Factory - - be part of the distro called openSUSE <VERSION> - - maintain the package in openSUSE <VERSION> for N+2 + 2 months ~ on the 8 month release cycle we started out with that turned out to be 18 months With Leap the maintenance period is proposed to get significantly longer and it is, at least that is my understanding, expected that those that submit packages to Leap do that maintenance. For Evergreen I would say that the general expectation has always been that the Evergreen team does the maintenance for everything after the 18 months are up. Not that I think any maintainer would have refused to help if the Evergreen team came knocking on the door, but generally I would say it was up to the Evergreen team to be the proactive party. For Leap, at least that's my understanding, the package maintainer is expected to be the active party. If my understanding of the difference is not correct then maybe we should have an automated TW -> Leap mechanism. However, we also will need an opt out for those that do not want to make that commitment.
Lets turn on Leap as build target for the Devel projects that feed factory. Based on your response to my other post that appears to be an agreeable approach. Later, Robert - -- Robert Schweikert MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU Public Cloud Architect LINUX rjschwei@suse.com IRC: robjo -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVmoCLAAoJEE4FgL32d2UkUjUH/jsnGEFvs8VhZy4ZzGPuS8wi 5baO36Dn62IaR5bxEj+XAVgS01+42IxOfkf3B0RdmZrrP9CWi9JNgdnIXexr8mmz RciZ4GvaH1L73Qr5cxpZOIMJHuOc1h1n+3iulSYYu3oJ8/dCpDLVC1I4XMHUVP+9 1UsiUP7aEdZ2tIWLKevTBsyEozS/s5rOiCz58MzEFLF5SO6G+NqOw9GDo3pE3uep 0NJcy4vulACFrxZlxx+2N5eNRw6HqPoKgNVq6uX18oyElVDJJSAvCL49bhOxPUhL 7Eoso+GiuoaAgCGDqNzivzVQv0j56T3e8yrh71gQkcEOM/Rg3Mq/JRCYHMK61yY= =uTvT -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
Hi, Am 06.07.2015 um 15:20 schrieb Robert Schweikert:
No, and I didn't care since I was set to maintain them myself if required (which was the default expectation). Wolfgang -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On 06.07.2015 15:20, Robert Schweikert wrote:
We have to set the expectations right. So it has to be documented what parts of the distribution will be maintained for how long. Not sure how this would look like. Greetings, Stephan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
Thanks for all the work. Op 03-07-15 om 11:13 schreef Stephan Kulow:
I have a couple of questions: 1. To be sure: if I want a package included I submit from openSUSE:Factory to openSUSE:42? 2. Are there yet any ideas about Updates policy? I mean: do we follow the 13.2 practice, which can have version updates for certain packages, or are we going to be more strict and keep the version in :42 the same and backport security fixes and other important fixes? 3. A bit related to 2: I maintain calibre and I would like to see that included. This uses Qt5 private headers, which means that if Qt5 is updated in 42 calibre needs to be either updated itself or rebuild. I am a bit worried about that. I don't maintain packages that are very important (well, to some they are), but I do care about them and I would like to take good care of them and I would like to use 42 on my desktop. Kind regards, Cor -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On 04.07.2015 12:00, Cor Blom wrote:
That was my suggestion, yes
As far as I'm concerned, this is an openSUSE release so our normal policies apply.
Make sure calibre requires the Qt version it was compiled with, so the broken dependency can be detected Greetings, Stephan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
Op 06-07-15 om 12:43 schreef Stephan Kulow:
Make sure calibre requires the Qt version it was compiled with, so the broken dependency can be detected
That's already the case. Thanks, Cor -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 07/03/2015 05:13 AM, Stephan Kulow wrote:
Are we close enough to turn Leap on as a build target for Devel: project s? I think that would be a fair starting point for maintainers to see how their packages behave when built against Leap.
Hmm, that's fair enough for now. But moving forward we probably have to consider that this may be insufficient. While I hate to optimize for corner cases, or keep doors open for hypothetical reasons, this beast is so complex that we might consider creating one or more special Devel projects that can feed Leap. At least the "rules" should, IMHO not shut the door on this. Later, Robert - -- Robert Schweikert MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU Public Cloud Architect LINUX rjschwei@suse.com IRC: robjo -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVmnccAAoJEE4FgL32d2Ukc38H/1UTbpeZ+QkFkw08Go9e+Abv VsW/6aoyDjw1IV83zfQdiDQEKhNmAgRkBDpvnQE8qcD+MKEt/AbqpR+HBwVuK9K+ wdsiMPySfEGeI5CdgccGoudxoofiiEkM+zm49h11Hvp/2uu6n43jL6wICB9eDhyB yN0I2e+BRujwksOpIwdnwDMiKiSKMBPDsqx93V/xKNaS8TMYlU6+ShvvONp+7JMJ 6UjaSaBP1+MZm+HJ0isT7/uu5H6+FAU9RfzIe7+8vLXtt7iwh0apbObcRrYCpuhj oGpO79JnFQ8SzVKCxiq7Kt3IVtYwI+Y6LV/wvm0B/Pb2x/xTN1NrpkXyWR0+rUU= =f7zb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On 06.07.2015 14:39, Robert Schweikert wrote:
I would think so. 42 has 2005 succeeded packages.
I think that would be a fair starting point for maintainers to see how their packages behave when built against Leap.
Yes, good idea.
Sure, but we need extra reviews for this case then. That's the only addition IMO. Greetings, Stephan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
participants (14)
-
Carlos E. R.
-
Cor Blom
-
Dominique Leuenberger a.k.a. Dimstar
-
Frederic Crozat
-
Guido Berhoerster
-
Jan Engelhardt
-
Mathias Homann
-
Richard Brown
-
Richard Brown
-
Robert Schweikert
-
Stefan Seyfried
-
Stephan Kulow
-
Takashi Iwai
-
Wolfgang Rosenauer