Search results for

Slowroll and amdgpu-pro and alternatives

by Peter McD

Hi, I use Leap 15.5 a my main system because of openCL for Darktable which simply works faster with the proprietary amdgpu-pro driver. Slowroll is rooted in Tumbleweed and that in turn is presently not famous for support of amdgpu-pro. Are there any plans to chance that for Slowroll? Peter

11 months

Re: [opensuse-factory] Slowroll version bump 20231001

by Felix Niederwanger

Hi Bernhard, does this indicate that likely the Kernel might become the pacemaker of Slowroll, or is this just a single occurrence? Or can't we tell yet? Best, phoenix On 02/10/23 13:51, Bernhard M. Wiedemann wrote: > Hi, > > the last (and first) Slowroll base snapshot from Tumbleweed was 20230822 > > The next one should be 20231001 if it passes openQA. > > Why? > We need to catch up with major version bumps to not diverge too much > from Tumbleweed. > E.g. there are no kernel updates anymore in the 6.4.x series and we do > not even have the latest 6.4.16 from upstream but .12 there. > > https://www.zq1.de/~bernhard/linux/opensuse/slowroll/slowroll-vs-tumbleweed… illustrates the concept of these bumps > > So far we have > 1156 pkg updates not released > 1423 pkg updates released > > So we did not stand still either and usually got the most important > (security) fixes 1-2 days after Tumbleweed. > I guess, with more elaborate event-based coding and smaller staging > projects, we could get that down to a few hours. > > Ciao > Bernhard M.

1 year, 1 month

Re: Slowroll arch availability

by Felix Miata

Bernhard M. Wiedemann composed on 2023-11-28 05:42 (UTC+0100): > Felix Miata wrote: >> https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Slowroll and >> http://cdn.opensuse.org/slowroll/repo/oss/ make Slowroll look like it's x86_64 >> only. If my observation is correct, is it expected to stay that way? I thought I >> saw mention in a mailing list post or the forums that i586/i686 already existed, >> but mirrors I checked seem to be just the one. > So far I stay close to Tumbleweed/Factory in that I only build i586 libs > where needed to run 32-bit applications such as Steam. > https://download.opensuse.org/slowroll/repo/oss/x86_64/ lists 1239 32bit > packages. > With the current approach, I base Slowroll on a Tumbleweed snapshot, so > it is hard to add architectures there. That would need full rebuilds > from sources (which I have considered as an option but would certainly > cause new issues). Thanks for the confirmation. I understand extra arches mean more precious resources are required. :p -- Evolution as taught in public schools is, like religion, based on faith, not based on science. Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata

11 months

Re: vote on slowroll name

by Fritz Hudnut

For those that haven't been following the history, my understanding is that "Slowroll" is the way of moving "Leap" forward into new iterations . . . as there is no plan for Leap 15.7 at this time . . . "Slowroll" will carry the the flame of Leap into the future, albeit, "rolling slowly" rather than the quick changes of TW. I do like TW for it's "freshness," but lately it has been more "Sid-like" than my actual Sid install. Some item breaking with regularity, requiring too much time . . . if "Slowroll" is designed to be the mid-point between the staidness of Leap and the "exhilaration" of not knowing how TW will boot, then it will be the "just right" option. Now if only a name for it could be agreed upon . . . .

1 year, 1 month

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

by Joe Salmeri

On 9/19/23 12:40, Larry Len Rainey wrote: > > Joe > > The latest DVD iso was installed today with no network adapter and I > used Virtualbox shared clipbord to change the repos before adding any > network card. This gets past the kernel issue. > > TWSLOW:~ # zypper lr -d > # | Alias | Name | Enabled | GPG Check | Refresh | > Priority | Type | URI | Service > --+--------------+--------------+---------+-----------+---------+----------+--------+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+-------- > 1 | base-non-oss | base-non-oss | Yes | ( p) Yes | No | > 99 | NONE | > http://cdn.opensuse.org/repositories/openSUSE:/ALP:/Experimental:/Slowroll/… > | > 2 | base-oss | base-oss | Yes | ( p) Yes | No | > 99 | NONE | > http://cdn.opensuse.org/repositories/openSUSE:/ALP:/Experimental:/Slowroll/… > | > 3 | base-src-oss | base-src-oss | No | ---- | ---- | > 99 | NONE | > http://cdn.opensuse.org/repositories/openSUSE:/ALP:/Experimental:/Slowroll/… > | > 4 | h264 | h264 | Yes | (r ) Yes | No | > 99 | rpm-md | > http://codecs.opensuse.org/openh264/openSUSE_Tumbleweed/ | > 5 | packman | packman | Yes | (r ) Yes | No | > 70 | rpm-md | > http://ftp.gwdg.de/pub/linux/misc/packman/suse/openSUSE_Slowroll/Essentials/ > | > 6 | update | update | Yes | (r ) Yes | Yes | > 80 | rpm-md | > http://cdn.opensuse.org/repositories/openSUSE:/ALP:/Experimental:/Slowroll/… > | > TWSLOW:~ # > > Zypper dup and Yast software get the same error: > > Trying again... > Timeout exceeded when accessing > 'http://cdn.opensuse.org/repositories/openSUSE:/ALP:/Experimental:/Slowroll/…'. > Abort, retry, ignore? [a/r/i] (r): > Trying again... > Timeout exceeded when accessing > 'http://cdn.opensuse.org/repositories/openSUSE:/ALP:/Experimental:/Slowroll/…'. > Abort, retry, ignore? [a/r/i] (a): > Trying again... > Error building the cache: > [base-non-oss|http://cdn.opensuse.org/repositories/openSUSE:/ALP:/Experiment…] > Valid metadata not found at specified URL > History: > - ABORT request: Aborting requested by user > - Can't provide > ./repodata/876557493f31abad37825b61e24c91ddc5859b8a65315e16258318341df1dcc2-appdata.xml.gz > - Timeout exceeded when accessing > 'http://cdn.opensuse.org/repositories/openSUSE:/ALP:/Experimental:/Slowroll/…'. > Hi Larry, One thing I forgot to mention to you in my earlier message was that I created my VM using VMWare Player 17.0.2 and not Virtualbox but that shouldn't affect the outcome. I believe ( but could be wrong ) that the cdn download locations are setup to get you to a download server that is closer to where you are. The fact that you are getting those timeouts seems to indicate there is some sort of network issue in your path to those servers. Not sure where you are located but I am in the US in Maryland so assuming I am correct about the CDN servers and you are not near me, it could be that the servers you are using are where the problem is. I just tried repeating the process of creating the SlowRow VM and again it works successfully and zypper dup ( after enabling the network connect ) worked fine. -- Regards, Joe

1 year, 1 month

[opensuse-factory] Slowroll version bump 20231001

by Bernhard M. Wiedemann

Hi, the last (and first) Slowroll base snapshot from Tumbleweed was 20230822 The next one should be 20231001 if it passes openQA. Why? We need to catch up with major version bumps to not diverge too much from Tumbleweed. E.g. there are no kernel updates anymore in the 6.4.x series and we do not even have the latest 6.4.16 from upstream but .12 there. https://www.zq1.de/~bernhard/linux/opensuse/slowroll/slowroll-vs-tumbleweed… illustrates the concept of these bumps So far we have 1156 pkg updates not released 1423 pkg updates released So we did not stand still either and usually got the most important (security) fixes 1-2 days after Tumbleweed. I guess, with more elaborate event-based coding and smaller staging projects, we could get that down to a few hours. Ciao Bernhard M.

1 year, 1 month

Re: Slowroll that was supposed to be kernel-longterm gets kernel-default

by Bernhard M. Wiedemann

On 09/09/2024 15.41, Larry Len Rainey wrote: > The last 2 builds for slowroll installed both kernel-default and > kernel-longterm and boots kernel-default on the reboot. > > I have had to zypper rm kernel-default after the zypper dup and then > zypper -f kernel-longterm to get the longterm kernel in slowroll. > > I wonder how many longterm users are running with the default kernel > instead for the last to slowroll builds. both kernel-default and kernel-longterm are available. Similar to Tumbleweed. The only difference is that I also build kmp packages for kernel-longterm. Sometimes dependencies pull in the wrong thing. I did not yet figure out why exactly. Maybe when virtualbox pulls in its kmp but the longterm one is still building? Ciao Bernhard M.

1 month, 3 weeks

Re: Devel projects not building against Slowroll, yet

by Christophe Marin

Hello, (grouping answers, please respect the Reply-to field for further replies) On vendredi 28 juin 2024 07:46:12 UTC+2 Lubos Kocman wrote: > 15.5 is still supported and disabling these would lead to many unhappy > devel project repo users with broken repository urls. Many people use them. > Plus 15.6 would probably have some unresolvables on 15.5 > That's correct. The Leap and Slowroll concepts are fundamentally different: - Leap users want a stable base and occasional updates. Only a few KDE / Qt packages are maintained in SLE. For these users, we provide additional repositories with the latest KDE packages releases. - Slowroll users want a factory base that doesn't get updated several times a week, knowing they won't immediately get the shiny-new-release that just came out. It makes no sense to provide latest versions for Slowroll. They will get it when it's updated. Users willing to get the latest versions without delay should question whether using Slowroll is what they really want. > > Devel projects are useful to check if the latest version fixed a bug. So the > above does not make sense at all. > From a maintainance pov, it would also make no sense, openSUSE:Slowroll packages are copied from openSUSE:Factory. We have no role in what happens there (and since I happen to be the one who submits most KDE/Qt packages to factory, I absolutely don't want any) Christophe

4 months

Leap Replacement - Results from recent contributor survey

by Richard Brown

Hi all, I've been looking at the results from the recent contributor survey to gauge the interest and feasibility of replacing openSUSE Leap with a new community-built offering. For those who may not have been keeping up with the efforts, their are proposals to build two very different distributions to replace Leap: "Linarite" - a regular old fashioned release desktop distribution, likely with a narrower package selection than we're used to with Leap unless we find significantly more contributors to be able to support everything "Slowroll" - a derivative of Tumbleweed, built automatically as much as possible, using automation and metrics to copy packages from Tumbleweed only after certain conditions (max age, X weeks without change, etc). Basically an attempt to provide something less scary than full speed Tumbleweed. Rather than bombard everyone with all the data, I've decided to take the approach of asking specific questions and seeing what data from the survey best helps answer that question. --- Q1: Did the survey reach a representative sample of our contributor base? A: The survey received 251 responses in total, 101 from people who self identified as a 'Contributor', either to the distributions or the Project more broadly. 72 identified as a distribution contributor, which is larger than the 61 people who submitted packages to Leap or Backports for the last release. Therefore I think it's clear the survey reached a broad enough audience to draw some meaningful conclusions from. --- Q2: Between "Linarite", "Slowroll" and not replacing Leap, which is the most popular with our contributors? A: Not replacing Leap was the most popular option when distribution contributors were asked which options would they contribute towards (39%) Not replacing Leap/using Tumbleweed was the most popular option when distribution contributors were asked which would they use on their desktop/laptops (54%) Those same contributors did collectively suggest that Linarite should be the direction of openSUSE (37%) and what they'd use on their servers (43%) Q3. Between "Linarite", "Slowroll" and not replacing Leap, which is the most popular with our users? Slowroll was the most popular option when users were asked which options they'd contribute towards (28%). Linarite was 3rd (19%) after not replacing Leap (25%) Slowroll was also the #1 option when users were asked which option was the best direction for openSUSE (39%) and which would they use on a server (48%). Just using Tumbleweed was also the most popular option with our users for their desktop/laptops (41%), followed by Slowroll (36%) Linarite was not the #1 choice for our users in any of the questions asked. Q4. Do we have enough contributors/Can we get enough contributors to make any option work? 24 distribution contributors said they would contribute to Linarite 13 said they would contribute to Slowroll 49% said they wouldn't contribute to any Leap replacement 26 users said they would contribute to Linarite 38 said they would contribute to Slowroll 53% said they wouldn't contribute to any Leap replacement --- Some thoughts/analysis Our users seem to overwhelmingly favour rolling releases, with 51%-64% expressing a preference for either Tumbleweed or Slowroll regardless of whether they're being asked if they'll use it for Server, Desktop, or whether they'll contribute or think it's the best direction for the project. This preference increases when contributors are asked, with the preference ranging between 55%-71% depending on the question. In the light of these results, it is my suggestion to the community that if we are to build something to replace Leap, then the option we should focus on is Slowroll. It is the most popular with our users, and the option more closely aligned to what our contributors use themselves. I also think its more important for the Leap replacement to focus on Desktop use cases, as openSUSE will also be hosting 1:1 copies of SUSE's ALP products. Those products should be awesome for folk who want Enterprise-like server distros. Given that it seems silly to spread ourselves too thin trying to make a Leap replacement that is both a Server and Desktop OS. That said though, I am still concerned that we do not have enough contributors to make any Leap replacement viable. Leap has struggled even with 61 folk contributing directly to the codebase and backports/PackageHub. And this is when we've had the SLE codebase to borrow from, which dramatically reduced the work required. Either Slowroll or Linarite would require considerably more packaging and maintenance work than Leap. And yet, based on these survey results, we look like we're going to be replacing Leap with significantly _fewer_ contributors than we have even for Leap. Outside of the survey, only 17 people have expressed an interest in working on a Leap replacement, and so far Slowroll and Linarite have both been one-man-shows. Being hopeful, Slowroll does seem to be the concept that promises to convert more users into contributors. And if we focus on Desktop-only (relying on the 1:1 ALP copies for Server) we might not need as much effort. But I worry that we'd do more harm than good for our community to push forward towards any effort that doesn't really have much enthusiasm behind it. The survey clearly shows a tendency for folk to believe openSUSE should do things which they themselves are not willing to contribute to. For a Leap replacement to be viable, both to be made and then supported for years, I'm convinced we need a significant increase in folk rolling up their sleeves and working towards it. So, I want to challenge the community with a few questions Shall we go on with these efforts? If so, are you willing to help? Thoughts, comments, flames all welcome -- 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

Re: vote on slowroll name

by Joe Salmeri

On 9/25/23 12:12, Fritz Hudnut wrote: > For those that haven't been following the history, my understanding is that "Slowroll" is the way of moving "Leap" forward into new iterations . . . as there is no plan for Leap 15.7 at this time . . . "Slowroll" will carry the the flame of Leap into the future, albeit, "rolling slowly" rather than the quick changes of TW. > > I do like TW for it's "freshness," but lately it has been more "Sid-like" than my actual Sid install. Some item breaking with regularity, requiring too much time . . . if "Slowroll" is designed to be the mid-point between the staidness of Leap and the "exhilaration" of not knowing how TW will boot, then it will be the "just right" option. Now if only a name for it could be agreed upon . . . . Hi Fritz, What are the TW build numbers where you experienced the breakage ? -- Regards, Joe

1 year, 1 month

openSUSE Factory search results for query "Slowroll"