[opensuse] OpenSuse considering a rolling release addition to scheduled release
http://digitizor.com/2010/12/03/opensuse-to-offer-a-rolling-release-repo-cal... This is how Greg described openSUSE Tumbleweed: I'd like to propose "openSUSE Tumbleweed" a repo that is a rolling updated version of openSUSE containing the latest "stable" versions of packages for people to use. -- Michael S. Dunsavage -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On 12/4/2010 5:14 PM, Michael S. Dunsavage wrote:
http://digitizor.com/2010/12/03/opensuse-to-offer-a-rolling-release-repo-cal...
This is how Greg described openSUSE Tumbleweed:
I'd like to propose "openSUSE Tumbleweed" a repo that is a rolling updated version of openSUSE containing the latest "stable" versions of packages for people to use.
Latest Stable versions of packages as a criteria seems perhaps a little thin. In addition I would suggest no package in that repo can require a package later than is contained in the repo. So just because the maintainer THINKS abcd-1.1 is stable, the fact that it requires wxyz-2.3.4 when wxyz-2.3.3 is the latest stable in the repo would be sufficient to keep abcd-1.1 out of the repo. I'm sure I haven't thought this thru very well, but you can see where I'm going here. Tumbleweed should be rolling rock solid, otherwise its no different than factory. -- _____________________________________ ---This space for rent--- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Sun, 05 Dec 2010 15:18:04 -0800, John Andersen
Latest Stable versions of packages as a criteria seems perhaps a little thin.
In addition I would suggest no package in that repo can require a package later than is contained in the repo.
I'd recommend you post those statements over at opensuse-project where the issue is discussed. You'll directly reach those involved. Philipp -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On 12/04/2010 07:14 PM, Michael S. Dunsavage wrote:
http://digitizor.com/2010/12/03/opensuse-to-offer-a-rolling-release-repo-cal...
This is how Greg described openSUSE Tumbleweed:
I'd like to propose "openSUSE Tumbleweed" a repo that is a rolling updated version of openSUSE containing the latest "stable" versions of packages for people to use.
It would be the greatest thing since sliced-bread for openSuSE. A rolling release is the *right* way to do Linux. If you haven't tried a rolling release distro, go load Arch Linux. A rolling release makes forced upgrades from release x.1, to x.2, ... a thing of the past. There is so much benefit that comes from a rolling release that it is impossible to give justice to the concept in a short reply. But, for the distro is will dramatically cut the cost of maintenance, bandwidth, development, etc.. Instead of maintaining 3 separate sets of repositories (or more) say for 11.1, 11.2, 11.3, you just maintain "openSuSE". Development still occurs in factory, but once package updates are complete for package X, then it is moved to the normal repository. Then with each 'zypper up' you are brought current, not just current for 11.1, 11.2, etc.. A rolling release also eliminates all those frustrating 'WON'T FIX' bugs where a annoying bug is found it 11.2, but the devs 'WON'T FIX' for 11.2 because it is no longer the current release and only fix for 11.3 with no backport. I hope openSuSE does go to a rolling release. The distro would improve, it would be more usable as a server platform by eliminating the "oh crap, I've got to rebuild the server -- my release is out of support" Along with suse, I've used Arch for about 2 years now, and from that experience, I can tell you the rolling release model is so superior to a release based operation, that the differences are night and day. Sure there are still the little hiccups, but they are few and far between. One thing that Arch does that's smart, is not only to the have the current kernel, but they also maintain a LTS kernel (long term support). It provides an automatic fallback in case there is a hiccup with a new kernel update. Think about it, rather than trying to build and ready 4000 packages for a 'release', the distro just concentrates on the next 10 - 20 upstream changes and works those few package issues to get the next set up updates ready rather than juggling 4000 packages at once all stuck compiled against a given set of libraries and kernel. Bug handling is simplified. You are handling bugs from 11.1, 11.2, 11.3, etc... you are just focused on bugs with the latest updates and any new one that are discovered. I would bet you could cut the bug handling resourced by 60%+ by eliminating chasing bugs for multiple releases. Pretty smart proposal. If I think back over the last 5 years at all the improvements opensuse has proposed, they would all pale in comparison to implementing a rolling release. I hope opensuse does it! -- David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E. Rankin Law Firm, PLLC 510 Ochiltree Street Nacogdoches, Texas 75961 Telephone: (936) 715-9333 Facsimile: (936) 715-9339 www.rankinlawfirm.com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On 12/05/2010 08:18 PM, David C. Rankin wrote:
Pretty smart proposal. If I think back over the last 5 years at all the improvements opensuse has proposed, they would all pale in comparison to implementing a rolling release. I hope opensuse does it!
I totally agree with David on this one! I'm in the process of installing Arch on a remote server at this time just because of the rolling release feature. I'm really tired of point release updates where you can't afford any downtime and you don't have physical access to the hardware. I have to rent a second system, do the install and grooming, port the content, then switch dns entries and hope for the best. No fun at all. Go for it!!! Regards, Lew Wolfgang -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On 12/5/2010 8:18 PM, David C. Rankin wrote:
On 12/04/2010 07:14 PM, Michael S. Dunsavage wrote:
It would be the greatest thing since sliced-bread for openSuSE. A rolling release is the *right* way to do Linux.
David: In your use of Arch's rolling release have they ever slipped in packages that were clean and stable but hozed over other packages such that you were forced to roll back the upgrade, or use packages outside the rolling release to get up and running? Are new commits really tested against the existing package base, or are they simply letting the package management do its normal requires/provides analysis? This is where things still occasionally go to hell in Debian Rolling Releases. -- _____________________________________ ---This space for rent--- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On 12/06/2010 02:29 PM, John Andersen wrote:
avid:
In your use of Arch's rolling release have they ever slipped in packages that were clean and stable but hozed over other packages such that you were forced to roll back the upgrade, or use packages outside the rolling release to get up and running?
No, Arch has got a pretty slick setup that catches 99.9% of the potential problems before newer packages from testing (factory equivalent) to the stable repos. Basically before a package gets moved, you have a 'sign-off' on both architectures from both the devs and the community.
Are new commits really tested against the existing package base, or are they simply letting the package management do its normal requires/provides analysis?
Yes, new commits *are* tested against the existing package base. That is the essence of a rolling release. For packages with multiple dependencies (eg. kernel/nvidia drivers, etc..), those 'coupled' packages are always updated as a group and once they are signed-off, then they get moved to stable. The tricky ones are the major changes to say hal or dbus, or the current python2->python3 change. They work the same way, but you know they are going to spend more time in testing (factory) before you see the roll out. I have never had a bad update that Arch has put out experience a rollback. (now there have been a couple of package-1.2.next versions come out in quick succession :p
This is where things still occasionally go to hell in Debian Rolling Releases.
Arch has been rock solid on both its rolling-release and package handling. If opensuse goes this route, I hope they look at all the current rolling-release distros to find the best practices, but from my experience, they will want to take an extra-close look at Arch's rolling-release model. -- David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E. Rankin Law Firm, PLLC 510 Ochiltree Street Nacogdoches, Texas 75961 Telephone: (936) 715-9333 Facsimile: (936) 715-9339 www.rankinlawfirm.com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 4:11 AM, David C. Rankin
On 12/06/2010 02:29 PM, John Andersen wrote:
avid:
In your use of Arch's rolling release have they ever slipped in packages that were clean and stable but hozed over other packages such that you were forced to roll back the upgrade, or use packages outside the rolling release to get up and running?
No,
Arch has got a pretty slick setup that catches 99.9% of the potential problems before newer packages from testing (factory equivalent) to the stable repos. Basically before a package gets moved, you have a 'sign-off' on both architectures from both the devs and the community.
Are new commits really tested against the existing package base, or are they simply letting the package management do its normal requires/provides analysis?
Yes, new commits *are* tested against the existing package base. That is the essence of a rolling release. For packages with multiple dependencies (eg. kernel/nvidia drivers, etc..), those 'coupled' packages are always updated as a group and once they are signed-off, then they get moved to stable. The tricky ones are the major changes to say hal or dbus, or the current python2->python3 change. They work the same way, but you know they are going to spend more time in testing (factory) before you see the roll out.
I have never had a bad update that Arch has put out experience a rollback. (now there have been a couple of package-1.2.next versions come out in quick succession :p
This is where things still occasionally go to hell in Debian Rolling Releases.
Arch has been rock solid on both its rolling-release and package handling. If opensuse goes this route, I hope they look at all the current rolling-release distros to find the best practices, but from my experience, they will want to take an extra-close look at Arch's rolling-release model.
-- David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E. Rankin Law Firm, PLLC 510 Ochiltree Street Nacogdoches, Texas 75961 Telephone: (936) 715-9333 Facsimile: (936) 715-9339 www.rankinlawfirm.com
David, Greg KH is driving Tumbleweed. He has created a repo in OBS, but it is definitely at day one stage right now. https://build.opensuse.org/project/show?project=openSUSE%3ATumbleweed He is trying to get a kernel and git to compile and work for now. He is an expert kernel developer, but he is asking questions now on opensuse-packaging about how to get those packages to work right and for zypper to deploy them right. Once he has that, I suspect he will be looking to start adding packages. ie. Getting all of KDE 4.5 "should" be as simple as them being pushed from the kde 4.5 repo to the tumbleweed repo. Same for Samba, etc. Most of the major packages are already maintaining stable repos in addition to the 11.3 release repos. As to doing best-of-breed research, the topic is being discussed on opensuse-project. That's typically a relatively low volume mailinglist. http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-project/2010-11/msg00206.html You seem to have some good knowledge. If you want to impart it, you really need to join that mailing list and join the conversation. fyi: FOSDEM is coming up in a month and they have a distro-mini conference for sharing working knowledge about the distro process. Hopefully some openSUSE members will get a chance to discuss a rolling release with others there. Greg -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
participants (6)
-
David C. Rankin -
Greg Freemyer -
John Andersen -
Lew Wolfgang -
Michael S. Dunsavage -
Philipp Thomas