On 03/22/2017 06:18 PM, Ludwig Nussel wrote:
Wolfgang Rosenauer wrote:
For example I'm pretty sure that SLE has openldap as well. How and who would deal with that component in SLE and why is there a disconnect between SLE and Leap there? Or is there none and SLE is broken the same way? (I doubt that.)
Unfortunately in this specific case I don't have records as to why we accepted the deviation :-( Nowadays the leaper bot would leave a comment and warn already.
Why don't we use SLE as is? We want an LTS distro! Again and again single users are able to break it... We need written rules. IMO It should be really really really difficult for a package maintainer to update his package in Leap. In case his update breaks any other package, then the cause should be reverted immediately.
IMHO we as a project should try everything to avoid that or mitigate such situations. Unresponsive maintainers can always happen unfortunately for many reasons.
IMO we should finally start to revert things which break other things. For example the texlive update in 42.3 ... Please revert it! Lets make an example. Let's scare away all the users and maintainers who always wants the newest stuff. Tumbleweed is made for them. Unfortunately I don't believe that Leap will ever be LTS-like. Maybe we should better stop wasting time with Leap and fork an Evergreen from 42.2, following until EOL and then pulling from SLE-12 updates only. cu, Rudi -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org