On Tuesday 28 March 2017, Ludwig Nussel wrote:
Rüdiger Meier schrieb:
[...] 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
I haven't seen any other opinions on this one.
IMO more important, I have also not seen any reason why texlive needs to be updated each Leap minor release. I repeat myself again. There is TW for this. In this case also all the (IMO mostly dishonest) concerns seen in this thread about to much work to maintain old versions, double work for TW and Leap, etc. do not count because we disconnected texlive from SLE-12 on purpose.
Rudi might be a bit more grumpy about this case as the texlive update caused a build failure in one of his packages (sbcl). Apart from that texlive looked like an easy update candidate to me.
For me the successful build of the whole Leap distro is some kind of minimal test-case which we should not break. I do not care much about my particular sbcl package. Just can't understand why it breaks each minor Leap update. How could it be worse on the old non-LTS release model? Users who need an LTS distro for example to use it as stable build host for their in-house continuous integration services should better not use Leap, as long as not even Leap itselves survives it's own build. Could you imagine how many trouble tickets more github/travis-ci would get if they would use Leap instead of Ubuntu LTS? I'm not grumpy just to be grumpy. I want to see an LTS openSUSE distro, stable, without surprises. So far there is no LTS since Evergreen is on hold. cu, Rudi -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org