Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-packaging (113 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse-packaging] A doubt about java rpms
  • From: Andreas Jaeger <aj@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 10:24:36 +0100
  • Message-id: <ho64qm4aln.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Aschwin Marsman <aschwin@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Sun, 20 Nov 2005, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
>> Damian Mihai Liviu <> writes:
>> > On Sunday 20 November 2005 16:31, Guillermo Ballester Valor wrote:
>> >> I guess this will be updated for the upcoming SuSE 10.1.
>> > I hope it will be in 10.0 ;-)
>> 10.0 is a done deal, we're not going to add version updates for it -
>> we're fixing security bugs only,
> This is the thing I would like to have changed: create a package of
> software, give it a label (10.0) and then go on to create the next
> package and only do security updates.
> There is no technical reason why e.g. vim 6.4 (there is a source
> rpm for it for 10.1 alpha) won't be released for 10.0. I would
> love to have a stable base (10.0, it's much better than 9.3 to
> my opinion) and then improve it incrementally. The big plus for
> e.g. Debian is that you can upgrade by only installing packages
> without the need to use a e.g. boot cdrom which is not so easy
> when you have installed you're software on remote locations.
> Is this strategy open for discussion or is there a Novell veto for
> it (I could take away some SLES customers)?

The problem I see is where to make a boundary:

* Any update, even a minor one, might break existing software

* What do you define as stable base? Some people might like to see
glibc and GCC updated as well.

We're working hard to keep our development base really stable - this
is a change for us since earlier where our development base was
internally we did break it

Andreas Jaeger, aj@xxxxxxx,
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 N├╝rnberg, Germany
GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
< Previous Next >
Follow Ups