let me thank you all for participating in the survey. The amount of
responses was enormous (way more than entire Leap 15.2 release retro)!
Let me share thoughts from initial review by peoplew ho came up with
the survey. We definitely want to do this on release2release basis so
we can see trends.
There will be two public rounds of survey review tomorrow on jitsi,
everybody is welcome to grab coffee/tee and join.
More information can be seen in the invitation from Doug
All meeting minutes can be found here:
Participants: dimstar, dirk, lkocman, a_faerber, maxlin, guillaume_g
The survey template for the future:
Q: Which ARMv6/ARMv7/ARMv8 (aarch64) hardware are you using?
The option 'AArch64 based general purpose (e.g. Mustang, ThunderX/X2,
Any UEFI AArch64 platform,
aarch64-laptops, other) (SQ05)' contains a lot of choices. We need to
break it down to the future. UEFI/aarch64 covers a huge - U-Boot
implemented UEFI, too.
Perhaps other with text field would help.
Q: What distributions do you use on your ARMv6/v7/aarch64 Hardware?
Ideas: custom image can be misleading as it could be modified Leap
15.1/15.2/TW image or also unlisted item (JeOS). The original idea was
a self-built image containing non-standard patches/package-
Andreas: mention Kubic next time? (cf. 211 for G01Q06) consider
Q: How long are you using openSUSE on ARMv6/v7/v8 already?
Growth from 36 - 124 over past 4 years
Q: In case you selected Leap, what is the reason for that?
Andreas: Some comments look like people don't know that we have aarch64
TW images? cf. 151 for G01Q06
Dirk: we need to invest little bit more into getting Leap (on Arm)
Q: Would you be okay with migrating your existing Leap installation to
we somehow missed ARMv8/AArch64 but that was due to the description
which was ARMv6/7 specific.
Andreas: perhaps split questions into two. If you run Leap would you
consider Leap question yes/no and vice versa (or split by
Q: Please share us with any information you might want to add in
We need to do more marketing/blog posts around aarch64 Raspberry Pi
(RPi4 in particular)
Lubos: perhaps make a blog post with summary of our userbase and
summarize current Arm situation in openSUSE project (what's available
and what not).
* Sound for Raspberry Pi 4 requested, let's make sure that plan is
mentioned in the blog post. Not yet tracked by SUSE for backporting to
Dirk: suggests to do a user case specific blog post for raspi-pi4 (e.g.
first contact with opensource world, or computer for kids). Perhaps use
the trend of RPi 400.
Andreas: someone should test the RPi400 if we do the blog post.
Andreas: can we do something so that openSUSE is perceived as more
fine-tuned for Raspberry Pi? So it's comparable to e.g. raspbian
Guillaume: I think this could be video decoding.
Andreas: config tool on Raspbian for editing config.txt - consider a
YaST Raspberry Pi module similar to raspi-config?
Multilib on aarch64: apps like citrix seem to require 32bit libs. Can
we ship multilib on Arm?
Guillaume: Rasp Pi4 is capable of running both 32/64bit libs, but some
Armv8 hardware are 64-bit only and would need ILP32. (zypper does not
allow to install armv7 rpm packages on aarch64) - Andreas: note that
ILP32 libs would not help Citrix apps, right? G: ILP32 would not help
for 32-bit libs and ILP32 is unlikely to reach upstream.
Andreas: -32bit packages seen for ilp32 project, do we need to enable
this via some setting? (careful: do not confuse AArch32/armv7 and ILP32
here, we'd need aarch32 in a way that doesn't rule out ilp32 in the
future). G: Please do not enable ILP32, there is no support upstream!
Dirk: 32bit builds are in fact done on ARMv8 (Andreas: and hopefully
not picking up Armv8 features)
Andreas: While Raspberry Pi 1 is no longer sold, Raspberry Pi 0W still
is, as "new" Armv6 device (G: It should remain in production until at
least January 2026). Would be interesting to monitor how to Armv6
numbers evolve over time (getting less vs. going up?)
Andreas: report of issues with Raspberry Pi firmware in transactional
update mode (157)
Andreas: report of problems with RPi.GPIO on RPi3/RPi4 (241)
ddemaio: Might consider adding a demographic question to the survey to
know when best to brief results to community. Something like "What
region are you in.  Asia  EMEA  Americas
I've been reading up on the Foundation proposal and i wonder what is the current status?
I see a few outstanding issues since August 2020:
1) Discussions with SUSE regarding trademarking;
2) Decision on the legal format of the Foundation;
3) Board is waiting on people to come forward to help in the transition and analysis of legal + financial challenges.
- Are these talks ongoing at the moment? (also who are having these talks?);
- Has a lawyer looked at it already?;
- Also what about paying an annual license to SUSE for the use of the openSUSE trademark while naming the Foundation "Geeko Foundation"? As why does the foundation need to be named after the distro's it's supporting? Why not keep it more general? I mean we have loads of different flavours of openSUSE with Leap, Tumblewed, Kubic, MicroOS, etc. Maybe in the future even other distro's will come our way that doe not bear the name openSUSE <xxx>..
2) Legal Format
- I see 3 options; Foundation or e.V. if going with German Law, or a different countries type of foundation (maybe a different EU country..);
- Has a Lawyer already drawn up the required documents?
3) Transition team
- have some people stepped forward?;
- is there already a working group who is having regular meetings with minutes and action-points?
Also i would like to step forward to help in the transition team on the financial side.
I'm a financial controller with a MSc in Accountancy and I've worked in international environments and with not-for-profit organisations in the past (including helping in setting up a German gGmbH).
On a last note I'd like to point out that I'm in favor of having a separate foundation for the project, where the financial and legal side of the project resides. Mainly for donations, sponsorships and the ability to make decisions in the best interest of the community without feeling that we need to listen to one particular group extra. Which does not mean that the two groups can't be mutually beneficent for each other.