Search results for

Re: Leap Replacement - Results from recent contributor survey

by Richard Brown

On Sat, 2023-09-02 at 10:43 +0200, Michal Suchánek wrote: > Hello, > > why do you think that Slowroll would require more packaging effort > than > Leap? > > Just as Leap derives from SLE, Slowroll derives from Tumbleweed. > > I could even argue that Slowroll would require less effort when all > packages come from Tumbleweed while Leap is built on top of SLE and > has > a large number of packages of its own. Because, unlike Leap where maintenance for SLE packages is effectively 'automatic' (ie. taken care as part of the daily business of SLE), and unlike Tumbleweed where it's also effectively 'automatic' ('just throw a new version at it), Slowroll will likely require old-fashioned maintenance (CVE bumps, backports, narrow-fixes) for packages in Slowroll but not-yet-ready to be copied from Tumbleweed I suppose we COULD just take the approach of having Slowroll carrying 'known issues' until the impacted packages pull from Tumbleweed But I think that's not exactly an ethical way of distributing software - if that's the route we go down, we'd need to make it very clear that Tumbleweed would be the objectively more secure, better maintained offering of the Project. And if that becomes the case, then what would the point of Slowroll be? So yeah, if we're going to do Slowroll, we need to maintain is well, which would mean rapid response for narrow fixes when bugs/CVE's/security issues arise but we can't trust the packages from Tumbleweed yet to resolve them. And I recognise that's an extra challenge to find contributors willing to do that work given, under a model like Slowroll, we absolutely will be throwing away that work and replacing it with packages from Tumbleweed within a designated time. -- Richard Brown Distributions Architect SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, Frankenstraße 146, D-90461 Nuremberg, Germany (HRB 36809, AG Nürnberg) Managing Directors/Geschäftsführer: Ivo Totev, Andrew McDonald, Werner Knoblich

1 year, 2 months

Slowroll: package stats + thoughts

by Bernhard M. Wiedemann

Dear fellow Geekos, You might have seen my https://en.opensuse.org/File:Slowroll-vs-tumbleweed-updates.svg that I drew up before development of Slowroll even started. And now I was wondering how it looks in reality, so I wrote a munin plugin script [1] to graph http://stage3.opensuse.org:17080/munin/opensuse.org/stage3.opensuse.org/slo… (today's snapshot img at) https://www.zq1.de/~bernhard/images/share/slowroll/slowrollstats-day-202405… The blue line is counting the packages in Tumbleweed that got updates since the last version bump (2024-04-29). That increased by ~120 yesterday around 14:40 - there were actually 154 updates and the difference is from packages that have previously been updated since the version bump. Then we have the green area representing src-packages in the Slowroll update repo. If something receives multiple updates, it will count multiple times here, so that number could theoretically get higher than Tumbleweed's. But it does not atm. It increased by 72/d over the last two days. Mostly around 08:00 when updates go out (bunched together to not need multiple repo-metadata updates). In that number, we have two components: the bigger part are packages where Tumbleweed binaries are re-used, because our own build was found to be equivalent (per build-compare) - that is the red line in the graph. +42/d here. The second part (yellow) is Slowroll-specific builds (+30/d) this number could be lower, if we had more reproducible-builds (e.g. for python3). As divergence between Factory and Slowroll grows after a version-bump, this number is expected to get a larger share. It would be beneficial to keep this number low, because at the next version bump, we need to discard these builds and then zypper needs to pull more updates. One conclusion from this graph is that there is room to improve the time until we get CVE-fixes from Tumbleweed into Slowroll. [2] Currently it is ~18h delayed and I think, we could get it down to 3h (for packages that don't take long to build). Another conclusion is that more reproducible builds will help reduce the amount of undesirable Slowroll-specific builds. Maybe I should reduce the rate of updates for unreproducible packages... Ciao Bernhard M. [1] https://github.com/openSUSE/slowroll-tools/blob/devel/extra/munin-slowrolls… [2] https://trello.com/c/2nj0UPHL/31-event-driven-updates

6 months, 1 week

Re: New Slowroll update 20241030T2221 released!

by Terje J. Hanssen

Den 06.11.2024 17:35, skrev Bernhard M. Wiedemann: > > > On 06/11/2024 17.26, Terje J. Hanssen wrote: >> I have also asked for Slowroll package's version number, like what >> the Tumbleweed script auto-generates. > > This is tracked in > https://trello.com/c/qPPqduyH/44-augment-ml-notification I wasn't aware of that ... > > >> And updated monthly iso media - the last modified version is still >> since 9.9.2024 > > The October iso had a problem, so I left it unpublished. The November > iso is already built and looking good. It should be out on Friday. Fine :) > >> https://download.opensuse.org/slowroll/iso/ >> and to find Slowroll distribution on the gui download page >> https://get.opensuse.org/ > > I don't want it on that page until we have good automated tests. I understand. A good while ago, Slowroll "beta release" was mentioned. What is the current state here, or isn't this relevant for a rolling? > > >> Suggestions: >> Add a Slowroll montly update to openSUSE News like Tumbleweed here >> https://news.opensuse.org/2024/10/30/tw-monthly-update-october/ >> (possibly with a reference link to this on the >> https://en.opensuse.org/ Portal:Slowroll) > > Since we inherit all the Tumbleweed packages, the monthly TW update > all applies to Slowroll. Why duplicate it? > Maybe we could mention that it also applies to Slowroll (as published > ~10d later) Yeah, the latter seems reasonable to me. > > > Ciao > Bernhard M. Terje J. H

2 weeks, 3 days

Re: [Slowroll] Proposal for use of stable packages

by Bernhard M. Wiedemann

On 11/08/2024 07.47, Pavin Joseph via openSUSE Factory wrote: > Hi team, > > I propose to use stable versions of packages in Slowroll and not > development versions of some packages shipped by Tumbleweed. Hi Pavin, I'm afraid, that is not so easy. Technology-wide, Slowroll is based on a regular (currently monthly) snapshot from Factory and if Factory has a certain version, it will appear in Slowroll some weeks later. E.g. the 20240803 TW snapshot came to Slowroll on 2024-08-09 In principle, OBS would support updating on a per-package basis, but doing that for 15000 packages, while avoiding excessive rebuilds is tricky. Also by picking different combinations of packages you can discover new integration issues that neither Leap nor Tumbleweed have ever seen. And we don't have openQA tests for Slowroll, yet. We can do some improvements that allow automation to keep the manual workload manageable. I have roughly 2400 minutes available per week and that is not enough to manually check 15000 packages. Ciao Bernhard M.

3 months, 1 week

Re: Devel projects not building against Slowroll, yet

by Neal Gompa

On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 2:36 PM Dominik Heidler <dheidler(a)suse.de> wrote: > > Hi, > > most devel projects are not building against Slowroll yet. > Actually only these view projects DO already build against Slowroll: > - Cloud:Seafile > - Java:Factory > - Java:packages > - X11:xfce > - filesystems:snapper > - multimedia:proaudio > > The projects that are currently building against Tumbleweed > but not against Slowroll: > [...] > system:packagemanager:dnf I've enabled Slowroll, since I already enable literally all variants of Factory and Tumbleweed already anyway. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!

4 months, 3 weeks

Re: New Slowroll base snapshot 20240429 released!

by Bernhard M. Wiedemann

On 07/05/2024 05.55, Andrei Borzenkov wrote: > On 06.05.2024 23:08, Bernhard M. Wiedemann via openSUSE Factory wrote: >> >> We are slowly getting closer to where I want Slowroll to be. >> > > Any chance to produce Slowroll images with integrated Slowroll > repositories? My understanding is that currently images in > https://download.opensuse.org/slowroll/ are just copies of Tumbleweed > images? I now made a NET install iso that still has many issues, but at least it has the right URL preset. See https://trello.com/c/AqFIWnYM/1-install-cddvd Also did a fix to the VM image. It had broken repos. Ciao Bernhard M.

6 months, 2 weeks

Re: slowroll will not install correctly from either network iso or DVD image

by Joe Salmeri

Hi Larry, I was just getting ready to reply to you saying the same thing Wayne wrote. I believe the "key" point is that you MUST disable the network connection when doing the initial installation from the DVD, otherwise, it is pointed to the TW repos and therefore during the update it would update to the latest TW version. Then when you changed the repos to SlowRow, it would be pointing to a version which is older than the version you updated to during the installation. The DVD iso is not installing the 6.5.3 kernel, it is getting updated because during the initial install you have the online repos enabled and it updates you to the kernel that is in those online TW repos. That's why you have to turn the network off to do the initial install. By turning off the network in the VM, doing the initial install ( which now cannot be upgraded to the latest TW because there is no network ), rebooting, changing the repos as detailed below, enabling the network and finally doing the zypper dup ( which will now come from the SlowRoll repos ) everything works. Hope that helps! Joe On 9/19/23 11:07, Wayne Patton via openSUSE Factory wrote: > Hi Larry, > > I just followed the process in Bernard's below and it worked fine. I > have a VM running slowroll now. I used the > openSUSE-Tumbleweed-DVD-x86_64-Snapshot20230822-Media.iso he > references below then replaced the repos and zypper dup. > > Wayne > > On Tue, 2023-09-19 at 07:22 -0500, Larry Len Rainey wrote: >> >> The DVD iso installs the 6.5.3 kernel. The Network ISO does the same. >> Makes it impossible to do updates and you are stuck with a broken >> Tumbleweed. >> >> I even went as far as to install a 3 year old Tumbleweed ISO with a >> 5.X kernel but it was so old that zypper could do a dup with the >> current slowroll repos - said all were invalid format. I think an ISO >> with a 6.4 kernel might be the only way. >> >> I will disable the network in VirtualBox and download and try again >> the DVD iso. >> >> Larry >> >> On 9/19/23 06:59, Bernhard M. Wiedemann wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On 19/09/2023 02.59, Larry Len Rainey wrote: >>> >>>> I have tried everything to get slowroll to work - tumbleweed >>>> migrate, leap 15.5 migrate - none work as zypper dup does not >>>> update to a working slowroll it will install tumbleweed and fail to >>>> zypper dup to slowroll. I have created 24 different vms that have >>>> not worked a zypper dup to a valid result. >>>> >>>> Slowroll will update to the 6.4.24 kernel and get deleted because >>>> the install image put 6.5.3 kernel and the reboot deletes the 6.4.24. >>>> >>>> Can someone make a valid slowroll install iso and not install >>>> tumbleweed but a true slowroll? >>>> >>>> I would take a slowroll virtualbox vm that works. I have no idea >>>> how to set virtualbox to work with slowroll - it seems to get >>>> recreated with every Tumbleweed kernel but seems to be backward >>>> compatible. >>> >>> >>> We don't have dedicated media for Slowroll atm, so the easiest way >>> is an offline (no network so it does not use repos with newer files) >>> install with >>> >>> https://download.opensuse.org/repositories/openSUSE:/ALP:/Experimental:/Slo… >>> >>> >>> and then replace repos as described in >>> https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Slowroll >>> >>> btw: Slowroll has the 6.4.12 kernel. >>> https://build.opensuse.org/package/view_file/openSUSE:ALP:Experimental:Slow… >>> >>> >>> >>> Ciao >>> Bernhard M. > -- Regards, Joe

1 year, 2 months

Re: Slowroll RFE support and multimedia codecs

by Shawn W Dunn

On 2/9/24 05:41, Terje J. Hanssen wrote: > Hello list, > > I don't know if this is the correct location for this topic. > > Even that Slowroll may be in a test phase, it would be wishable to have > somewhere to communicate and route specific requests for support and > enhancements. For example Product name 'Slowroll' in bugzilla, possibly > mailing list and forum. > > So far I have used product name Tumbleweed in bugzilla regarding > ffmpeg-6-6.1.1 > https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1219259 > For new Bugzilla targets, you should be sending a message to bugzilla-admins(a)suse.com And asking for Slowroll to be setup as a Product, under the openSUSE Umbrella. > To do real test of Slowroll on desktops as I want, we need to use it as > a full time replacement for Leap 15.5 or Tumbleweed. > That is, we need optional access to all additional package repositories > for multimedia:/libs, codecs enabled tools and applications from OBS and > All from Packman. > As far as things not needing to rely on devel: repositories like multimedia:/libs, that is for the Developers of Slowroll to decide how they want to handle it, and not something that is decided by somebody else. Packman issues don't belong here, as Packman is not part of the openSUSE project, in any way, shape, or form. It's a third-party service, provided by an unaffiliated group, if you wish to see some sort of Slowroll buildtarget on packman, you would need to contact the Packman administrators at https://lists.link2linux.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/packman > And corresponding installation support for Slowroll using OPI, Zypper, YaST > https://en.opensuse.org/Additional_package_repositories en.opensuse.org is a wiki, and can be edited by anybody, feel free. > https://opensuse-guide.org/codecs.php > https://ostechnix.com/how-to-install-multimedia-codecs-in-opensuse/ > Neither of these sites are part of the openSUSE project, if you have issues with the content they are providing, you should be contacting the administrators of those sites, through whatever mechanism they provide. > > Rgds > Terje J. Hanssen I mean, I'm just going to state this. The -Factory Mailing list isn't the place to make these sorts of requests. I know it's a common misconception, but there is no "In Charge Of" in openSUSE, like there is with Fedora, with FESCo and the SIG's (Just as an example) The developers working on Slowroll are the ones that make the decisions on how they wish to handle it, And I haven't the foggiest if they regularly follow the -Factory ML, or where they may discuss their development roadmaps or models. Packman

9 months, 1 week

Re: Devel projects not building against Slowroll, yet

by Dominik Heidler

I just created a list querying all devel projects that build against Tumbleweed but not against Slowroll using a script. If some devel projects don't make sense for Slowroll, that's fine of course. Am 27.06.24 um 16:10 schrieb Shawn W Dunn: > Why would devel:microos* build against slowroll? That makes zero sense.

4 months, 3 weeks

Re: Testers Wanted: longterm kernel

by Robert Frohl

On 05.02.24 19:56, Nikolai Nikolaevskii wrote: > Kernel:/slowroll:/Backport is for Leap 15.5? > https://download.opensuse.org/repositories/Kernel:/slowroll:/Backport/stand… Sorry, only planning for TW and slowroll. > > It is better to call LTS kernel as LTS, not as Slowroll: The naming is an artifact from the git server. The branches are named after the products they go into. This kernel is aimed at slowroll, but will also reach TW as a (welcome) side effect. The name is also only a problem now, once submitted to Factory users will not have to deal with the test repo anymore. Cheers, Robert -- Security Engineer, SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, Frankenstraße 146, 90461 Nürnberg, Germany, GF: Ivo Totev, Andrew McDonald, Werner Knoblich (HRB 36809, AG Nürnberg) GPG: D29F 82AA 9FD5 9D6E 74B1 6370 089E DB3D 230A 2404

9 months, 2 weeks

openSUSE Factory search results for query "Slowroll"