Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-project (783 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse-project] Report #1 OpenSUSE LTS/openSLE (Long summary)
  • From: Jason Perlow <jperlow@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 15:41:32 -0400
  • Message-id: <34eeab20908241241t787b3885wfab227eb427fc845@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
I'm really glad you are doing this, and this is actually the reason
why I joined the list.

Originally I proposed the idea of doing "CentOS Green" to the centos
guys a bit back but they tabled the idea. Dag Wieers (rpmforge guy)
was the guy who was interested but he didn't have the right
introductions to the SUSE community as he was a Red Hat-oriented guy.
Now that Dag is no longer involved in CentOS I think would be a good
time to bring him in, because this will need dedicated resources to
work on it or at least a bunch of volunteers with a vested interest in
the project.

From a wishful thinking perspective I would like to see a full-blown
openSLES based on SLE source. But I agree, this might antagonize
Novell if it was under the auspices of openSUSE and would have to be
spun off as a separate entity from openSUSE if that direction were to
be pursued -- which is why I was originally thinking the CentOS guys.
We could form a new home for it, but there is a lot of startup
infrastructure that would be needed.

I think the desired approach would be to continue alignment with
openSUSE as a openSUSE/Novell sponsored "flavor" of openSUSE, using
openSUSE packages, however matching functionality on a
package-by-package basis with SLE, although not necessarily the same
package versions, we would use the openSUSE packages. I think an "LTS
openSUSE Server" makes sense, something with a 24 or 36 month support

I also think that "openSUSE Server Edition" has a lot of potential if
we use SUSE Studio as the basis for compiling the distro, with some
sort of permanent download area. This would serve as a good "demo" of
SUSE Studio for Novell's marketing purposes and ensure their support
for the project.

On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Boyd Lynn Gerber<gerberb@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Many of us have been thinking about this for years...

openFATE #306982: Create an open SLES

really started the ball rolling on this idea and gave it life.

I am reporting back the significant points from the new ML created.  To sum
things up...

We need a set of guidelines that must be followed.  These should include...

URL's for the Guidelines we should/must reference are as follows..



We need to define a set of guidelines for either project we choose. These
guidelines with be used and need to be reveiwed by someone with legal
knowledge.  Once we define these guidelines we will post them as an RFC to
the opensuse-project ML.

So to sum things up.

1.  I see us creating a server OS with long lifetime.

2.  Packages have to be 100 % binary compatible with our defined target.
    Only aberrations with removal of trademarks and or legal reasons are

3.  Every change has to be reproducable and tracked via an available SCM.

    I personally prefer GIT.  We need to make sure we keep in mind using
    an OBS as the prefered method of doing the task of building and
    releasing, and other things it provides.  This can be local BS or
    on the OBS.  The GIT GSOC project bsgit(*) provided a great front end
    to the OBS.  may assist us in this task.  The code finish code has to
    be made publically available.

4.  Every code change to the project has to have a SR and the 3 positive
   votes accepting it before it is published.  (Model after openSUSE

5.  We need legal advice on the setup of the packaging guidelines.  (What
   we have to remove to stay legal, and ...
   (Not much in the way of legal would be needed for openSUSE LTS)

6.  The guidelines should be written down and rpmlint checks made where
    possible to insure we abide by the guidelines and avoid legal issues.

There are basically two choices as the subject reports.

1.  openSUSE LTS        A longer life spam of openSUSE releases.
2.  openSLE(S,D)        A binary compatible with SLES/SLED

From all the information gathered from the various contacts openSLED is
really not an option.  openSUSE and SLED fill this requirement.  So there is
not need for it.

So the group must decide on which of the openSUSE LTS or openSLES they want
to do.  This is what I have so far on pros and cons for each.


1.  security fixes are already done for the lifetime of the release.
2.  Smaller number of rpm's
3.  Server oriented without a lot of clutter.
4.  All that would be needed is to remove the branding and rebrand it for
    openSLE.  A much smaller task.
5.  Binary compatible for SLES.

1.  Possiblity of antagonizing the Novell upper management.(Probable)
2.  Not the most politically acceptable solution
3.  Needs legal advice to conform to legal requirements.
4.  Needs a legal entity to control the SLES subscription and have the
    ability to get the patches to SLES. (Might be considered a pro)
5.  May need community provided local BS.

1.  No real legal issues.
2.  The ability to choose just the OSS easily.
3.  Large base of openSUSE users.
4.  Definitely able to use the OBS.
5.  Community driven in all ways.

1.  More packages that have to be paired down to a workable number.
2.  Community driven in all ways.
3.  Do we have enough people we trust to do back ports over the lifetime?
4.  Need highly driven members as everything will be on their sholders.
5.  I feel there will be more work with openSUSE LTS than with openSLE.

It had said time and time again that the openSUSE community is free to
create a community supported LTS and Novell will assist and provide the
necessary infrastructure but will not help by maintaining any packages.

Personally I really doubt there are enough willing and able people in the
current community to properly backport e.g. security fixes, drivers for the
kernel, and so on.  This is why I think the idea of a "cummunity supported
LTS" won't work. (or at least will not produce anything  "One would want to
run on a publice server").

Therefore I fee the right option is the do an openSLES, but this as of yet
has not been decided.

* bsgit

Boyd Gerber <gerberb@xxxxxxxxx> 801 849-0213
ZENEZ   1042 East Fort Union #135, Midvale Utah  84047
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@xxxxxxxxxxxx

Jason Perlow


Technology Columnist, ZDNet Tech Broiler (

Blogger/Podcaster, Off The Broiler (

LinkedIn Public Profile:
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@xxxxxxxxxxxx

< Previous Next >