- openSUSE Features

[openFate 304879] OOo: Update of KDE integration to KDE4
by fate_noreply＠suse.de 17 Jan '09

17 Jan '09

Feature changed by: Ruchir Brahmbhatt (Ruchir) Feature #304879, revision 19 Title: OOo: Update of KDE integration to KDE4 openSUSE-11.1: Rejected by JP Rosevear <jpr(a)novell.com> reject date: 2008-08-15 11:47:35 reject reason: As per PM recommendation. Priority Requester: Mandatory Projectmanager: Important Requested by: Stephan Binner (beineri) Interested: Markus K (kamikazow) Interested: Maxi Schimmel (maxxs) + Interested: Ruchir Brahmbhatt (ruchir) Interested: Stephan Kulow (coolo) Partner organization: openSUSE.org Description: The current OOo KDE integration (file dialogs, addressbook, interface/icon theme,...) is based on KDE3. As openSUSE 11.1/SLED 11 will likely not include KDE3 anymore it has to be upgraded to KDE4. Discussion: #1: Stephan Kulow (coolo) (2008-06-13 09:54:23) There are far too many mandatory OOo features. Please reevaluate - it's unlikely that we won't ship KDE3 apps in SLED11 #2: Dirk Mueller (dirkmueller) (2008-06-13 13:25:48) (reply to #1) we will ship KDE3 libs, yes. that doesn't mean that we desire to have KDE3 app dependencies ;) #7: Rajesh Ganesan (ganesanrajesh) (2009-01-07 03:20:08) Well, an excellent idea and most expected too. But (http://kde.openoffice.org/) seems struck at March 2006 itself. Any plans(or chance) of revival? -- openSUSE Feature: https://features.opensuse.org/?rm=feature_show&id=304879

1 0

[openFate 303311] Include Pidgin and the Conferencing Plugin for Pidgin
by fate_noreply＠suse.de 17 Jan '09

17 Jan '09

Feature changed by: Ruchir Brahmbhatt (Ruchir) Feature #303311, revision 14 Title: Include Pidgin and the Conferencing Plugin for Pidgin Requested by: Gary Ekker (gekker) + Developer: Michael Wolf (maw) + Interested: Ruchir Brahmbhatt (ruchir) Interested: Stefan Behlert (sbehlert) Partner organization: openSUSE.org Description: The Teaming + Conferencing product team from the workgroup BU would like us to include pidgin and the conferencing plugin for pidgin in SLED10-SP2. Discussion: #1: Gary Ekker (gekker) (2008-02-15 13:37:24) Pidgin was added. We were unable to add the zon-plugin and libicecore as there are still some packaging issues to be worked out for libicecore. libicecore is also not yet ready for x86_64. #3: Stefan Behlert (sbehlert) (2008-10-23 16:40:14) Gary, Michael, any news on zon-plugin? #4: Stefan Behlert (sbehlert) (2008-11-13 23:49:29) No progress here. I'm rejecting this now. Let's see if we want this for SP1 or if we have EMpathy there anda differen tsolution. -- openSUSE Feature: https://features.opensuse.org/?rm=feature_show&id=303311

1 0

[openFate 120340] Run download and install in parallel
by fate_noreply＠suse.de 17 Jan '09

17 Jan '09

Feature changed by: Robert Davies (robopensuse) Feature #120340, revision 40 Title: Run download and install in parallel openSUSE-10.2: Rejected by Klaus Kämpf <kkaempf(a)novell.com> reject date: 2006-08-09 11:36:10 reject reason: Not possible in 10.2 timeframe Priority Requester: Important openSUSE-10.3: Rejected by Stanislav Visnovsky <visnov(a)novell.com> reject date: 2007-08-01 10:25:01 reject reason: Out of time. Priority Requester: Important Projectmanager: Important openSUSE-11.0: Rejected by Jiri Srain <jsrain(a)novell.com> reject date: 2008-03-28 13:56:11 reject reason: Out of resources for 11.0. Priority Requester: Important Projectmanager: Important openSUSE-11.1: Rejected by Stanislav Visnovsky <visnov(a)novell.com> reject date: 2008-07-11 12:06:35 reject reason: This needs to wait. Postponing. Priority Requester: Important Projectmanager: Important openSUSE-11.2: Evaluation Priority Requester: Important Requested by: Klaus Kämpf (kwk) Requested by: Peter Poeml (poeml) Requested by: Reinhard Max (rmax) Interested: Ján Kupec (jkupec) Interested: Lukas Ocilka (locilka) + Interested: Robert Davies (robopensuse) Interested: Stephan Binner (beineri) Partner organization: openSUSE.org Description: Network installation could be improved by running package download and package installation in parallel. References: https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=60844 https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=209799 https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=128050 https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=370457 https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=370054 https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=385711 http://en.opensuse.org/Libzypp/Failover http://metalinker.org/ Fate #300660: Download package groups before install Discussion: #2: Klaus Kämpf (kwk) (2006-08-09 11:36:42) Michael already looked at this. Should be further evaluated for 10.3 #3: Edith Parzefall (emapedl) (2007-07-31 16:56:12) Problem is: what do we do if we lost the network connection when only half the packages are installed? #7: Reinhard Max (rmax) (2008-04-10 11:42:43) (reply to #3) I think this is a general problem for network based installations. Can you elaborate if/why you see this as a special problem when download and installation are running in parallel? #8: Peter Poeml (poeml) (2008-05-19 14:49:53) (reply to #7) For reliable operation of a business critical server, it is a must that packages are downloaded first, before the installation/update is started. Otherwise a network outage can lead to a broken system which is half updated. So if parallel download/install is implemented (for desktop users, maybe...) then please make sure that it is possible to disable it. #9: Reinhard Max (rmax) (2008-05-19 16:01:15) (reply to #8) As we just sorted out on IRC, the current implementation also doesn't allow to complete download before starting installation and the feature proposed here wouldn't make this worse. But as the wish of server admins to have all packages downloaded before starting to install them is very valid, I think we should extend this feature request to contain that requirement as well, and probably rename it to "decouple download and installation". If download and installation are properly decoupled, it should just be a matter of the parameters the algorithm is called with to get one of the following behaviours: * Download and install packages one by one (as it is now) * Keep downloading subsequent packages while installing (as originally proposed here) * Use a fixed-size download cache for flow control between download an installations (in situations where download is faster than installation and disk space is limited) * Download all packages of an update or installation and install them afterwards (as requested by Peter for server admins) #10: Jiri Srain (jsrain) (2008-05-20 10:22:10) (reply to #9) We already do have similar feature: #300660: Download package groups before install #4: Edith Parzefall (emapedl) (2007-07-31 16:57:22) Please reject for 10.3. #5: Duncan Mac-Vicar (dmacvicar) (2008-01-10 16:23:46) This is included in the ZYpp plan for 11.0, however implementation will start after beta. Will keep in evaluation, it depends on other milestones for beta1 -- openSUSE Feature: https://features.opensuse.org/?rm=feature_show&id=120340

1 0

[openFate 303517] Automatically refreshing repositories at recurring intervals
by fate_noreply＠suse.de 17 Jan '09

17 Jan '09

Feature changed by: Robert Davies (robopensuse) Feature #303517, revision 26 Title: Automatically refreshing repositories at recurring intervals openSUSE-11.1: Rejected by Stanislav Visnovsky <visnov(a)novell.com> reject date: 2008-09-12 14:12:10 reject reason: Postponing. Priority Requester: Desirable Projectmanager: Important openSUSE-11.2: Evaluation Priority Requester: Desirable Requested by: Ladislav Slezak (lslezak) Interested: J. Daniel Schmidt (jdsn) Interested: Jiri Srain (jsrain) Interested: Jiří Suchomel (jsuchome) + Interested: Robert Davies (robopensuse) Partner organization: openSUSE.org Description: Autorefresh configured repositories at certain times, this could be on certain days, or time of day, etc. A mockup and more details are in https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=346966 Discussion: #1: Federico Lucifredi (flucifredi) (2008-06-13 15:12:52) there are some caveats I can think of requiring silent fail (for instance, a laptop), or requiring randomization (not hitting NCC with a volley all at the same time), but I think the idea is good. #2: Duncan Mac-Vicar (dmacvicar) (2008-07-07 11:13:37) If you think you can make it work in a reliable way, please present a concept. Right now PackageKit and updater applets do refresh often before checking for updates so the system repos _are_ refreshed. So I don't see much value in this feature (unless a concept is presented). #3: Stanislav Visnovsky (visnov) (2008-07-07 12:34:19) (reply to #2) We have a concept in the automatic online update configuration. #4: Jiri Srain (jsrain) (2008-07-07 12:58:59) (reply to #3) You mean running online update from cron? It should involve metadata refresh, but I do not see any reason for a separate metadata download from cron. #5: Ladislav Slezak (lslezak) (2008-07-09 10:30:09) (reply to #4) The feature should allow to disable "autorefresh" flag for all repositories so the package management can be started quickly without connecting to network. The cronjob would keep the metadata uptodate. Of course, there might be a problem when metadata are changed too often on the server, but in my opinion that's not a usual case in the real world. #6: Jiri Srain (jsrain) (2008-07-10 12:16:08) Let's extend the "automatic online update" module so that it offers whether to do real automatic online update, or just refresh the metadata (via one check box) #8: J. Daniel Schmidt (jdsn) (2008-07-18 18:13:38) (reply to #6) This would hide the feature in an update related module. But the feature does not restrict this only to update repositories. Build- Service Repos might need a refresh as well or think of Factory. The right place for this feature is the Repository Manager. It has no relation to the update process or a configuration concerning updates. #7: Jiří Suchomel (jsuchome) (2008-07-14 14:46:01) Daniel, what's the status of the plan to merge "online update configuration" into registration module? #9: J. Daniel Schmidt (jdsn) (2008-07-18 18:15:46) (reply to #7) Currently I plan to merge it into a new module together with "Online Update Configuration" related settings. Please do not extend it with this unrelated repo refreshing dialog. #10: J. Daniel Schmidt (jdsn) (2008-09-10 19:48:24) Why am I listed as the only developer here? I just said that I will merge the modules "automatic online update setup" and "online update setup". This feature is requesting something completely different. #11: Duncan Mac-Vicar (dmacvicar) (2008-09-10 22:21:17) (reply to #10) Don't worry, this feature will be dropped as because the OnStar work. It is just abandoned. #13: Jiří Suchomel (jsuchome) (2008-09-11 08:20:55) (reply to #11) Really? I don't think so.This feature is aimed for opensuse (it wants to extend the current "online update setup"), while OnStar is for SLE. #12: Jiří Suchomel (jsuchome) (2008-09-11 08:22:02) (reply to #10) Because the requested feature would be part of what is currently "online update setup". And after the merge, I assumed you should mainain the merged parts. #15: J. Daniel Schmidt (jdsn) (2008-09-11 12:37:19) (reply to #12) No the requested feature will not be part of the successor of "online update setup". Maybe you want it to be. But IMHO this has nothing to do with anything that is called "online update *something*". This feature is about a general refresh of repositories - not just the update repo. Software repositories are handled in the "Software repositories" module. And thats the place where this feature is asking for enhancement. Just look at the linked bug (bnc#346966). It even has a mockup (yes, I added one as well, but just look at the original one). And this is now quite the same I already wrote in comment #8. #16: Jiří Suchomel (jsuchome) (2008-09-11 12:44:53) (reply to #15) Ah, sorry. Looks like I have some other feature in mind while commenting this one. This one really is not online-update specific. #19: Robert Davies (robopensuse) (2009-01-16 16:30:40) As when I go into Software Repository management, I am offered check boxes like "autorefresh", it would seem when those boxes are checked, that I expect this to happen without knowing about it. Being made to wait, when I choose to run Online Update, or Software Management, seems to defeat purpose of auto-refresh feature, though it is understandable if no refresh was done for days. Some kind of cron job, ought to just handle this. Why should the user be asked more questions than "autorefresh" tick box? -- openSUSE Feature: https://features.opensuse.org/?rm=feature_show&id=303517

1 0

[openFate 305634] Debian-like dist-upgrade live system full version upgrade
by fate_noreply＠suse.de 17 Jan '09

17 Jan '09

Feature changed by: Bruno Friedmann (bruno_friedmann) Feature #305634, revision 22 Title: Debian-like dist-upgrade live system full version upgrade openSUSE-11.2: Evaluation Priority Requester: Mandatory Requested by: Federico Lucifredi (flucifredi) Interested: Andre Duffeck (aduffeck) + Interested: Bruno Friedmann (bruno_friedmann) Interested: Francis Giannaros (apokryphos) Interested: Guy Lunardi (glunardi) Interested: Joe Brockmeier (jbrockmeier) Interested: JP Rosevear (jproseve) Interested: Klaus Kämpf (kwk) Interested: Mario Carrion (mariocarrion) Interested: Markus K (kamikazow) Interested: Matthias Eckermann (mge1512) Interested: Maxi Schimmel (maxxs) Interested: Stefan Behlert (sbehlert) Interested: Stephan Binner (beineri) Interested: Stephan Kulow (coolo) Interested: Thorsten Kukuk (kukuk) Partner organization: openSUSE.org Description: With the 11.2 cycle, we want to offer users the ability to perform a live system upgrade in the manner of Debian's dist-upgrade. For the purpose of this cycle, we want to support dist-upgrade from the previous version (11.1) only, as this is a sufficiently complicated problem as is. From the user's view, the difference is between being able to update the system incrementally within the given version or service pack running, to being ble to migrate with a system command ("zypper dup" or similar) to a higher version altogether. In the Debian experience, the set of base distributions is not necessarily limited, but it has been Ubuntu's practice to define what starting points other than "release n-1" are allowed (for instance, all LTS versions are purported to be able to "apt dist-upgrade" to the top of the line, although I have heard of problems trying to jump two years - 6.06->8.10 - in a fell swoop in this manner :-). In the openSUSE scope, we should aim to be able to "dup" between incremental versions, starting from 11.1 to 11.2, and later 11.x to 12.0. Business case (Partner benefit): openSUSE.org: With the introduction of the Zypper stack to SLE, we finally reached the state of a featureful (which YOU was not) and fast, reliable (which ZLM was not) update stack in the platform. For enterprise use, some tweaks are still desirable (changelogs, rollback, ...) which we are looking at, as well as improvements on the Enterprise management front, which we are working on with our SRM colleagues. The only really significant competitive feature we are missing at this point is the Debian/Ubuntu dist-upgrade functionality, which has a powerful psychological impact at the Enterprise level and a much more tangible impact at the small user / single user level: many with no IT department do use Ubuntu these days on the basis that "chasing" Fedora and openSUSE along the six-month upgrade cycle is too much for them, and feel they can save time on Ubuntu with the combination of dist- upgrade and the longer LTS cycle. The rationale for pursuing this is to revoke the special status of coolness this functionality gives Ubuntu, and to terminate the negative influence that may have on our SLE sales (from the expert's personal opinion, the preference then easily spills into purchasing). Discussion: #1: Federico Lucifredi (flucifredi) (2009-01-07 20:42:15) This is the #1 feature in the systems management scope for 11.2 - I have no doubt it will be fun :-) #4: Klaus Kämpf (kwk) (2009-01-09 11:32:53) Passing to mls for technical evaluation (solver + autobuild) #5: Michael Schröder (mlschroe) (2009-01-09 12:48:10) Any hint on what features are currently missing? #6: Klaus Kämpf (kwk) (2009-01-09 13:30:57) (reply to #5) From the top of my head: How to handle * Library ABI changes (e.g. major gcc/g++ upgrades) ? * Core package changes (e.g. devs.rpm to udev) ? * Kernel changes (if application/deamons need a specific kernel abi, dbus comes into mind) ? * Failure handling (network breakdown, package update errors, ...) ? * Booting of the new kernel ? #7: Michael Schröder (mlschroe) (2009-01-09 14:45:09) (reply to #6) And debian does this in some way? -- openSUSE Feature: https://features.opensuse.org/?rm=feature_show&id=305634

1 0

[openFate 300688] Show virtual keyboard on TabletPC during installation
by fate_noreply＠suse.de 17 Jan '09

17 Jan '09

Feature changed by: Mario Carrion (MarioCarrion) Feature #300688, revision 39 Title: Show virtual keyboard on TabletPC during installation openSUSE-10.2: Rejected by Jiri Srain <jsrain(a)novell.com> reject date: 2006-09-25 14:06:21 reject reason: Not enough resources. Priority Requester: Desirable Projectmanager: Desirable openSUSE-10.3: Rejected by Edith Parzefall <emapedl@please-enter-an-email-address> reject date: 2007-07-24 14:21:32 reject reason: Sorry, not doable for 10.3. Priority Requester: Desirable Projectmanager: Desirable openSUSE-11.0: Rejected by Michael Loeffler <michl(a)novell.com> reject date: 2008-01-11 16:39:04 reject reason: out of scope for openSUSE Priority Requester: Mandatory openSUSE-11.2: Evaluation Priority Requester: Mandatory Requested by: Stefan Behlert (sbehlert) Interested: Gary Ekker (gekker) Interested: Jiri Srain (jsrain) + Interested: Mario Carrion (mariocarrion) Interested: Stefan Behlert (sbehlert) Partner organization: openSUSE.org Description: Tablet PCs are normally produced in two kinds of flavours: Convertibles, which have a keyboard, and Slates, which have none (only pens or touchscreens). If a user installs a Slate, he has to press e.g. buttons without having a keyboard to do it. Additionally he has no mouse device (except his pen) to press buttons. To do so, two ways are possible: Either using some kind of graffiti scribbling, which makes entering e. g. the password an adventure, or by providing a virtual keyboard where the user can select the characters. The second possibility is far superior and also used by Windows. It should be simply to blend xvkbd into the screen. Only possible problems: If a 800x600 resolution is used, the display is really small for both Yast and the keyboard. Discussion: #3: Edith Parzefall (emapedl) (2006-09-20 17:04:28) Jiri, do you see any chance to have it done in your team? Otherwise, I'd reject it. #6: Stephan Kulow (coolo) (2008-01-11 13:50:29) I would think that such devices are out of context for openSUSE 11.0, but asking Michl. How would this look like? Would the xvkbd always be visible and yast screen reduced accordingly? #7: Michael Loeffler (sprudel24) (2008-01-11 16:38:08) As long as this is not required by SLED this is out of scope for openSUSE. #10: Guy Lunardi (glunardi) (2008-01-18 17:34:09) Gartner projects 5% to 20% market penetration for Tablet PCs in the Healthcare. It is positioned as: "Tablet PCs meet all the criteria for a notebook PC and are equipped with a pen and an on-screen digitizer". "The tablet PC is solid and mature for vertical applications where it solves a specific problem. Of course there are 2 kinds of tablets, with physical keyboard and without (slab). I had to install openSUSE 10.3 on a slab myself and must admit that on-screen would have been nice. Is there an engineering effort estimate that could be looked at before we reject it for SLED11? #11: Stefan Behlert (sbehlert) (2008-05-21 21:39:58) (reply to #10) Duncan, any effort estimation? #13: Guy Lunardi (glunardi) (2008-06-23 11:44:51) (reply to #11) As we discussed, support for tablet is primarly critical at runtime. if we can add support for the install, that would be great even for accessibility reasons. I think we should focus our resources on making sure that tablets work well once the system is installed. #14: Duncan Mac-Vicar (dmacvicar) (2008-11-18 13:38:12) (reply to #13) Sure, but this was rejected because there are no resources to do it. So what did we had to drop in order to make it? Without reprioritization there is nothing we can do. I will provide an effort estimation for a next cycle. Estimating the effort here means basically prototyping it, and that just can't be done. -- openSUSE Feature: https://features.opensuse.org/?rm=feature_show&id=300688

1 0

[openFate 300689] TabletPC: Support Touchscreen and Wacom decives during installation
by fate_noreply＠suse.de 17 Jan '09

17 Jan '09

Feature changed by: Mario Carrion (MarioCarrion) Feature #300689, revision 24 Title: TabletPC: Support Touchscreen and Wacom decives during installation openSUSE-10.3: Rejected by Stephan Kulow <coolo(a)novell.com> reject date: 2007-08-03 09:39:40 reject reason: installation is frozen Priority Requester: Desirable Projectmanager: Desirable openSUSE-11.1: Rejected by Stanislav Visnovsky <visnov(a)novell.com> reject date: 2008-07-16 09:02:38 reject reason: Postponing. Out of resources. Priority Requester: Important Projectmanager: Important openSUSE-11.2: Evaluation Priority Requester: Important Requested by: Stefan Behlert (sbehlert) Interested: Christian Zoz (zoz) Interested: Danny Kukawka (dkukawka) Interested: Gary Ekker (gekker) + Interested: Mario Carrion (mariocarrion) Interested: Philip Oswald (poswald) Partner organization: openSUSE.org Description: Tablet PCs are normally produced in two kinds of flavours: Convertibles, which have a keyboard, and Slates, which have none (only pens or touchscreens). If a user installs a Slate, he has no keyboard and no (pohysical) mouse device, only the touchscreen. We should on TabletPCs automatically recognize that it is a TabletPC and configure the Wacom or other Touchscreen device where possible. Thus would enhance the usability of the product on TabletPCs. Discussion: #1: Gary Ekker (gekker) (2007-07-17 11:24:05) Stefan, do you see this as work that your team would do, something that needs to be done by the YaST installer, or both? -- openSUSE Feature: https://features.opensuse.org/?rm=feature_show&id=300689

1 0

[openFate 305634] Debian-like dist-upgrade live system full version upgrade
by fate_noreply＠suse.de 17 Jan '09

17 Jan '09

Feature changed by: Mario Carrion (MarioCarrion) Feature #305634, revision 21 Title: Debian-like dist-upgrade live system full version upgrade openSUSE-11.2: Evaluation Priority Requester: Mandatory Requested by: Federico Lucifredi (flucifredi) Interested: Andre Duffeck (aduffeck) Interested: Francis Giannaros (apokryphos) Interested: Guy Lunardi (glunardi) Interested: Joe Brockmeier (jbrockmeier) Interested: JP Rosevear (jproseve) Interested: Klaus Kämpf (kwk) + Interested: Mario Carrion (mariocarrion) Interested: Markus K (kamikazow) Interested: Matthias Eckermann (mge1512) Interested: Maxi Schimmel (maxxs) Interested: Stefan Behlert (sbehlert) Interested: Stephan Binner (beineri) Interested: Stephan Kulow (coolo) Interested: Thorsten Kukuk (kukuk) Partner organization: openSUSE.org Description: With the 11.2 cycle, we want to offer users the ability to perform a live system upgrade in the manner of Debian's dist-upgrade. For the purpose of this cycle, we want to support dist-upgrade from the previous version (11.1) only, as this is a sufficiently complicated problem as is. From the user's view, the difference is between being able to update the system incrementally within the given version or service pack running, to being ble to migrate with a system command ("zypper dup" or similar) to a higher version altogether. In the Debian experience, the set of base distributions is not necessarily limited, but it has been Ubuntu's practice to define what starting points other than "release n-1" are allowed (for instance, all LTS versions are purported to be able to "apt dist-upgrade" to the top of the line, although I have heard of problems trying to jump two years - 6.06->8.10 - in a fell swoop in this manner :-). In the openSUSE scope, we should aim to be able to "dup" between incremental versions, starting from 11.1 to 11.2, and later 11.x to 12.0. Business case (Partner benefit): openSUSE.org: With the introduction of the Zypper stack to SLE, we finally reached the state of a featureful (which YOU was not) and fast, reliable (which ZLM was not) update stack in the platform. For enterprise use, some tweaks are still desirable (changelogs, rollback, ...) which we are looking at, as well as improvements on the Enterprise management front, which we are working on with our SRM colleagues. The only really significant competitive feature we are missing at this point is the Debian/Ubuntu dist-upgrade functionality, which has a powerful psychological impact at the Enterprise level and a much more tangible impact at the small user / single user level: many with no IT department do use Ubuntu these days on the basis that "chasing" Fedora and openSUSE along the six-month upgrade cycle is too much for them, and feel they can save time on Ubuntu with the combination of dist- upgrade and the longer LTS cycle. The rationale for pursuing this is to revoke the special status of coolness this functionality gives Ubuntu, and to terminate the negative influence that may have on our SLE sales (from the expert's personal opinion, the preference then easily spills into purchasing). Discussion: #1: Federico Lucifredi (flucifredi) (2009-01-07 20:42:15) This is the #1 feature in the systems management scope for 11.2 - I have no doubt it will be fun :-) #4: Klaus Kämpf (kwk) (2009-01-09 11:32:53) Passing to mls for technical evaluation (solver + autobuild) #5: Michael Schröder (mlschroe) (2009-01-09 12:48:10) Any hint on what features are currently missing? #6: Klaus Kämpf (kwk) (2009-01-09 13:30:57) (reply to #5) From the top of my head: How to handle * Library ABI changes (e.g. major gcc/g++ upgrades) ? * Core package changes (e.g. devs.rpm to udev) ? * Kernel changes (if application/deamons need a specific kernel abi, dbus comes into mind) ? * Failure handling (network breakdown, package update errors, ...) ? * Booting of the new kernel ? #7: Michael Schröder (mlschroe) (2009-01-09 14:45:09) (reply to #6) And debian does this in some way? -- openSUSE Feature: https://features.opensuse.org/?rm=feature_show&id=305634

1 0

[openFate 305634] Debian-like dist-upgrade live system full version upgrade
by fate_noreply＠suse.de 16 Jan '09

16 Jan '09

Feature changed by: Markus K (KAMiKAZOW) Feature #305634, revision 20 Title: Debian-like dist-upgrade live system full version upgrade openSUSE-11.2: Evaluation Priority Requester: Mandatory Requested by: Federico Lucifredi (flucifredi) Interested: Andre Duffeck (aduffeck) Interested: Francis Giannaros (apokryphos) Interested: Guy Lunardi (glunardi) Interested: Joe Brockmeier (jbrockmeier) Interested: JP Rosevear (jproseve) Interested: Klaus Kämpf (kwk) + Interested: Markus K (kamikazow) Interested: Matthias Eckermann (mge1512) Interested: Maxi Schimmel (maxxs) Interested: Stefan Behlert (sbehlert) Interested: Stephan Binner (beineri) Interested: Stephan Kulow (coolo) Interested: Thorsten Kukuk (kukuk) Partner organization: openSUSE.org Description: With the 11.2 cycle, we want to offer users the ability to perform a live system upgrade in the manner of Debian's dist-upgrade. For the purpose of this cycle, we want to support dist-upgrade from the previous version (11.1) only, as this is a sufficiently complicated problem as is. From the user's view, the difference is between being able to update the system incrementally within the given version or service pack running, to being ble to migrate with a system command ("zypper dup" or similar) to a higher version altogether. In the Debian experience, the set of base distributions is not necessarily limited, but it has been Ubuntu's practice to define what starting points other than "release n-1" are allowed (for instance, all LTS versions are purported to be able to "apt dist-upgrade" to the top of the line, although I have heard of problems trying to jump two years - 6.06->8.10 - in a fell swoop in this manner :-). In the openSUSE scope, we should aim to be able to "dup" between incremental versions, starting from 11.1 to 11.2, and later 11.x to 12.0. Business case (Partner benefit): openSUSE.org: With the introduction of the Zypper stack to SLE, we finally reached the state of a featureful (which YOU was not) and fast, reliable (which ZLM was not) update stack in the platform. For enterprise use, some tweaks are still desirable (changelogs, rollback, ...) which we are looking at, as well as improvements on the Enterprise management front, which we are working on with our SRM colleagues. The only really significant competitive feature we are missing at this point is the Debian/Ubuntu dist-upgrade functionality, which has a powerful psychological impact at the Enterprise level and a much more tangible impact at the small user / single user level: many with no IT department do use Ubuntu these days on the basis that "chasing" Fedora and openSUSE along the six-month upgrade cycle is too much for them, and feel they can save time on Ubuntu with the combination of dist- upgrade and the longer LTS cycle. The rationale for pursuing this is to revoke the special status of coolness this functionality gives Ubuntu, and to terminate the negative influence that may have on our SLE sales (from the expert's personal opinion, the preference then easily spills into purchasing). Discussion: #1: Federico Lucifredi (flucifredi) (2009-01-07 20:42:15) This is the #1 feature in the systems management scope for 11.2 - I have no doubt it will be fun :-) #4: Klaus Kämpf (kwk) (2009-01-09 11:32:53) Passing to mls for technical evaluation (solver + autobuild) #5: Michael Schröder (mlschroe) (2009-01-09 12:48:10) Any hint on what features are currently missing? #6: Klaus Kämpf (kwk) (2009-01-09 13:30:57) (reply to #5) From the top of my head: How to handle * Library ABI changes (e.g. major gcc/g++ upgrades) ? * Core package changes (e.g. devs.rpm to udev) ? * Kernel changes (if application/deamons need a specific kernel abi, dbus comes into mind) ? * Failure handling (network breakdown, package update errors, ...) ? * Booting of the new kernel ? #7: Michael Schröder (mlschroe) (2009-01-09 14:45:09) (reply to #6) And debian does this in some way? -- openSUSE Feature: https://features.opensuse.org/?rm=feature_show&id=305634

1 0

[openFate 304879] OOo: Update of KDE integration to KDE4
by fate_noreply＠suse.de 16 Jan '09

16 Jan '09

Feature changed by: Markus K (KAMiKAZOW) Feature #304879, revision 18 Title: OOo: Update of KDE integration to KDE4 openSUSE-11.1: Rejected by JP Rosevear <jpr(a)novell.com> reject date: 2008-08-15 11:47:35 reject reason: As per PM recommendation. Priority Requester: Mandatory Projectmanager: Important Requested by: Stephan Binner (beineri) + Interested: Markus K (kamikazow) Interested: Maxi Schimmel (maxxs) Interested: Stephan Kulow (coolo) Partner organization: openSUSE.org Description: The current OOo KDE integration (file dialogs, addressbook, interface/icon theme,...) is based on KDE3. As openSUSE 11.1/SLED 11 will likely not include KDE3 anymore it has to be upgraded to KDE4. Discussion: #1: Stephan Kulow (coolo) (2008-06-13 09:54:23) There are far too many mandatory OOo features. Please reevaluate - it's unlikely that we won't ship KDE3 apps in SLED11 #2: Dirk Mueller (dirkmueller) (2008-06-13 13:25:48) (reply to #1) we will ship KDE3 libs, yes. that doesn't mean that we desire to have KDE3 app dependencies ;) #7: Rajesh Ganesan (ganesanrajesh) (2009-01-07 03:20:08) Well, an excellent idea and most expected too. But (http://kde.openoffice.org/) seems struck at March 2006 itself. Any plans(or chance) of revival? -- openSUSE Feature: https://features.opensuse.org/?rm=feature_show&id=304879

1 0