On 26/01/12 01:19, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
I would personally advise against this way forward. I'd like to suggest
an alternative:
* Gather folks interested in this (you should be able to see some from
this thread). Perhaps announce that you are forming a group to look
into this.
* Get
On 01/26/2012 02:19 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 21:37:36 -0200
Henrique Juniorhenrique...@gmail.com wrote:
I would like to see Fedora following the path of rolling release.
openSUSE is doing a great job with the Tumbleweed, still keeping the
same old system of releases and
2012/1/26 Markus Mayer lotharl...@gmx.de:
On 01/26/2012 02:19 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 21:37:36 -0200
Henrique Juniorhenrique...@gmail.com wrote:
I would like to see Fedora following the path of rolling release.
openSUSE is doing a great job with the Tumbleweed, still
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 11:19 PM, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote:
I would personally advise against this way forward. I'd like to suggest
an alternative:
* Gather folks interested in this (you should be able to see some from
this thread). Perhaps announce that you are forming a group to
On 26/01/12 11:37, Henrique Junior wrote:
Did we have someone to lead this process?
possibly the op
--
Regards,
Frank Murphy, friend of fedoraproject
UTF_8 Encoded
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 00:22:28 -0500,
Scott Schmit i.g...@comcast.net wrote:
Except that this doesn't burn people often because Linus is also *very*
strict about interface changes between the kernel userspace.
Hardware specific regressions aren't that rare. I have run into them
several
I just had a conversation which I believe sheds some light on the
problem which a rolling release is trying to solve. The example is
Ubuntu bu you could apply the same to Fedora/RHEL.
My coworker wants to use Ubuntu LTS for development on Heroku. He
wants the stability of an LTS, but he needs a
On 26/01/12 17:15, Mark Bidewell wrote:
My coworker wants to use Ubuntu LTS for development on Heroku. He
wants the stability of an LTS, but he needs a later version of Ruby to
run the Heroku tools. He has found that there is not supported way to
upgrade Ruby short of recompiling Ruby or
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Bruno Wolff III br...@wolff.to wrote:
Hardware specific regressions aren't that rare. I have run into them
several times. I have had problems with disk controllers, USB flash
drives and video cards. Sometimes there are work arounds (e.g. using
nomodeset or
On 01/26/2012 10:45 PM, Mark Bidewell wrote:
I just had a conversation which I believe sheds some light on the
problem which a rolling release is trying to solve. The example is
Ubuntu bu you could apply the same to Fedora/RHEL.
My coworker wants to use Ubuntu LTS for development on Heroku.
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Frank Murphy frankl...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26/01/12 17:15, Mark Bidewell wrote:
My coworker wants to use Ubuntu LTS for development on Heroku. He
wants the stability of an LTS, but he needs a later version of Ruby to
run the Heroku tools. He has found that
On 26/01/12 17:43, Mark Bidewell wrote:
Since he was using Ubuntu I will say distro-supported, but if he was
using Fedora it would be Fedora supported. Ruby does not maintain
distro specific packages. Ubuntu has PPAs but these are somewhat
spotty for some software.
Sorry, I meant if he
On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 12:15:01 -0500
Mark Bidewell mbide...@gmail.com wrote:
I just had a conversation which I believe sheds some light on the
problem which a rolling release is trying to solve. The example is
Ubuntu bu you could apply the same to Fedora/RHEL.
My coworker wants to use Ubuntu
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Frank Murphy frankl...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26/01/12 17:43, Mark Bidewell wrote:
Since he was using Ubuntu I will say distro-supported, but if he was
using Fedora it would be Fedora supported. Ruby does not maintain
distro specific packages. Ubuntu has PPAs
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 12:51 PM, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 12:15:01 -0500
Mark Bidewell mbide...@gmail.com wrote:
I just had a conversation which I believe sheds some light on the
problem which a rolling release is trying to solve. The example is
Ubuntu bu you
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 6:15 PM, Mark Bidewell mbide...@gmail.com wrote:
I just had a conversation which I believe sheds some light on the
problem which a rolling release is trying to solve.
You didn't state how a rolling release would solve that (it wouldn't).
This is really a package
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 1:12 PM, drago01 drag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 6:15 PM, Mark Bidewell mbide...@gmail.com wrote:
I just had a conversation which I believe sheds some light on the
problem which a rolling release is trying to solve.
You didn't state how a rolling
On 01/26/2012 11:47 PM, Mark Bidewell wrote:
A rolling or semi-rolling release would make the most recent packages
available in some way. With careful updating a minimum Ruby upgrade
could be accomplished.
A rolling release addresses the dependencies problem by updating
everything including
On 01/26/2012 06:51 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 12:15:01 -0500
Mark Bidewellmbide...@gmail.com wrote:
I just had a conversation which I believe sheds some light on the
problem which a rolling release is trying to solve. The example is
Ubuntu bu you could apply the same to
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 2:30 AM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/24/2012 04:53 PM, mike cloaked wrote:
Having looked at the way releasing packages and versions in linux has
been moving in a number of distributions it is interesting that there
are several that now have a
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 11:32 PM, Bryan Quigley gqu...@gmail.com wrote:
It's worth noting that the following already appear to rolling components:
LibreOffice
Not true.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 9:49 AM, drago01 drag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 11:32 PM, Bryan Quigley gqu...@gmail.com wrote:
It's worth noting that the following already appear to rolling components:
LibreOffice
Not true.
Oh David already said that ... should probably read the
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Genes MailLists li...@sapience.com wrote:
On 01/25/2012 03:48 AM, drago01 wrote:
Exactly releases have the advantage of being a well tested set of
updates where you have a window to decide whether you want to update
yet or not.
So I don't see what a rolling
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 7:47 PM, Nathanael Noblet nathan...@gnat.ca wrote:
So far I've seen lots of discussion about can we do it, but no proposal nor
any real set of why it would be better. Does it reduce packaging work? Does
it do X Y Z? Why would I *want* a rolling release?
So far I'm not
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
Personally I'd rather see the effort go into making it easier to update
between Fedora releases. That provides a way to remain fairly current without
starting from scratch and allowing you to choose the timing of when you want
to deal with disruption.
What's wrong with
Hi.
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 13:33:49 -0600, Michael Cronenworth wrote
What's wrong with preupgrade?
Every other release doubles the space needed in /boot for it to
work?
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 13:33:49 -0600,
Michael Cronenworth m...@cchtml.com wrote:
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
Personally I'd rather see the effort go into making it easier to update
between Fedora releases. That provides a way to remain fairly current without
starting from scratch and allowing
Michael Cronenworth wrote:
What's wrong with preupgrade?
Preupgrade makes no effort to verify the authenticity of the new release it
downloads, so it's only usable for throw-away boxes where you don't care too
much if you get a backdoor or two installed together with your new Fedora
release.
2012/1/25 Björn Persson bj...@xn--rombobjrn-67a.se:
Michael Cronenworth wrote:
What's wrong with preupgrade?
Preupgrade makes no effort to verify the authenticity of the new release it
downloads, so it's only usable for throw-away boxes where you don't care too
much if you get a backdoor or
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 21:37:36 -0200
Henrique Junior henrique...@gmail.com wrote:
I would like to see Fedora following the path of rolling release.
openSUSE is doing a great job with the Tumbleweed, still keeping the
same old system of releases and letting users choose whether or not
using
On 01/26/2012 06:52 AM, Bryan Quigley wrote:
Oh, then I guess I would like to see LibreOffice be a rolling
component. I guess one of the questions is why rolling for these:
Linux Kernel
Firefox (forced by upstream policies)
Wine
and not for others?
You answered your own question really
I can understand exceptions for Firefox (but you don't want to switch
to the enterprise slow release right?), and Wine, but...
I've read it several times and I don't quite understand the major
kernel version bumps. 3.2.1 just got released to Fedora 16, yet it
started with 3.1.0.
Don't get me
On 01/26/2012 07:47 AM, Bryan Quigley wrote:
I can understand exceptions for Firefox (but you don't want to switch
to the enterprise slow release right?), and Wine, but...
I've read it several times and I don't quite understand the major
kernel version bumps. 3.2.1 just got released to
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 9:17 PM, Bryan Quigley gqu...@gmail.com wrote:
I can understand exceptions for Firefox (but you don't want to switch
to the enterprise slow release right?), and Wine, but...
I've read it several times and I don't quite understand the major
kernel version bumps. 3.2.1
On 01/25/2012 10:01 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 9:17 PM, Bryan Quigley gqu...@gmail.com wrote:
It's pretty simple, really. Basically, if we don't keep the kernel on at
least a somewhat recent release the amount of work required to support
that release grows beyond what we
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 10:46:42PM -0500, Genes MailLists wrote:
On 01/25/2012 10:01 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 9:17 PM, Bryan Quigley gqu...@gmail.com wrote:
It's pretty simple, really. Basically, if we don't keep the kernel on at
least a somewhat recent release the
Am 24.01.2012 12:23, schrieb mike cloaked:
Having looked at the way releasing packages and versions in linux has
been moving in a number of distributions it is interesting that there
are several that now have a rolling-release model.
Fedora would appear to be out of line in not taking on
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 6:23 AM, mike cloaked mike.cloa...@gmail.com wrote:
Having looked at the way releasing packages and versions in linux has
been moving in a number of distributions it is interesting that there
are several that now have a rolling-release model.
Three of these are:
2012/1/24 Josh Boyer jwbo...@gmail.com:
How is rawhide not a rolling release? Or perhaps better asked, what
about rawhide makes it
unsuitable for use as a rolling Fedora release?
This has been discussed several times on this list: Technically,
rawhide is a rolling release, sure. But rawhide
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 11:23:14AM +, mike cloaked wrote:
Fedora would appear to be out of line in not taking on board the
potential user base for a rolling release version. For servers there
would be huge advantages in management of systems.
I doubt your claims here.
Fedora already has
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Josh Boyer jwbo...@gmail.com wrote:
Fedora would appear to be out of line in not taking on board the
potential user base for a rolling release version. For servers there
would be huge advantages in management of systems.
Can you list what advantages there
On 24/01/12 12:22, Thomas Moschny wrote:
2012/1/24 Josh Boyerjwbo...@gmail.com:
How is rawhide not a rolling release? Or perhaps better asked, what
about rawhide makes it
unsuitable for use as a rolling Fedora release?
This has been discussed several times on this list: Technically,
rawhide
On 24/01/12 12:30, mike cloaked wrote:
The number of problems that have been reported to the lists for yum
upgrades seems very large. Although for any rolling release there
have been occasions where unforeseen problems have arisen the day to
day updates have been largely routine and trouble
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Frank Murphy frankl...@gmail.com wrote:
On 24/01/12 12:22, Thomas Moschny wrote:
2012/1/24 Josh Boyerjwbo...@gmail.com:
How is rawhide not a rolling release? Or perhaps better asked, what
about rawhide makes it
unsuitable for use as a rolling Fedora
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Frank Murphy frankl...@gmail.com wrote:
On 24/01/12 12:30, mike cloaked wrote:
The number of problems that have been reported to the lists for yum
upgrades seems very large. Although for any rolling release there
have been occasions where unforeseen problems
On 24/01/12 12:24, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 11:23:14AM +, mike cloaked wrote:
Fedora would appear to be out of line in not taking on board the
potential user base for a rolling release version. For servers there
would be huge advantages in management of systems.
On 01/24/2012 07:24 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 11:23:14AM +, mike cloaked wrote:
Fedora would appear to be out of line in not taking on board the
potential user base for a rolling release version. For servers there
would be huge advantages in management of
On 24/01/12 12:41, mike cloaked wrote:
This was meant as a discussion in the desirability or otherwise of the
concept of rolling release.Of course manpower is required to make it
happen.
Desirability and manpower can't be seperated in some situations.
This being one. page to the sig\wiki
On 01/24/2012 07:13 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
How is rawhide not a rolling release? Or perhaps better asked, what
about rawhide makes it
unsuitable for use as a rolling Fedora release?
Actually it is totally unsuitable for a stable rolling release.
A rolling release, as most mean it these
On 01/24/2012 01:24 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 11:23:14AM +, mike cloaked wrote:
Fedora would appear to be out of line in not taking on board the
potential user base for a rolling release version. For servers there
would be huge advantages in management of
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 6:24 AM, Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 11:23:14AM +, mike cloaked wrote:
Fedora would appear to be out of line in not taking on board the
potential user base for a rolling release version. For servers there
would be huge
2012/1/24 Genes MailLists li...@sapience.com:
On 01/24/2012 07:13 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
How is rawhide not a rolling release? Or perhaps better asked, what
about rawhide makes it
unsuitable for use as a rolling Fedora release?
Actually it is totally unsuitable for a stable rolling
On 01/24/2012 01:44 PM, mike cloaked wrote:
I've been doing this a while,
F16 yum --releasever=17 update --bugfixes --exclude=fedora-release*
How can the --bugfixes possibly work when there are no updates
metadata in Rawhide?
Michal
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On 01/24/2012 02:13 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
Fedora suffers an additional problem it seems - not only are there
large changes as part of many releases, but lately some of them
immediately stop being supported until the 'next big release' - which
makes fedora far less reliable and desirable
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 07:13:03AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
Is there any support at all within the development community for a
rolling release version of Fedora (and possibly ulitimately Redhat)?
Is there a possibility that not moving to rolling release could
ultimately damage Fedora in
On 24/01/12 14:05, Michal Schmidt wrote:
On 01/24/2012 01:44 PM, mike cloaked wrote:
I've been doing this a while,
F16 yum --releasever=17 update --bugfixes --exclude=fedora-release*
How can the --bugfixes possibly work when there are no updates
metadata in Rawhide?
Michal
We'll it doesn't
On 01/24/2012 09:08 AM, Michal Schmidt wrote:
On 01/24/2012 02:13 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
Fedora suffers an additional problem it seems - not only are there
large changes as part of many releases, but lately some of them
immediately stop being supported until the 'next big release' -
On 24/01/12 14:31, Frank Murphy wrote:
How can the --bugfixes possibly work when there are no updates
metadata in Rawhide?
Michal
We'll it doesn't throw an error.
So no idea.
Apologies forget paste link:
http://fpaste.org/IvtS/
--
Regards,
Frank Murphy
UTF_8 Encoded
--
devel mailing list
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 6:23 AM, mike cloaked mike.cloa...@gmail.comwrote:
Having looked at the way releasing packages and versions in linux has
been moving in a number of distributions it is interesting that there
are several that now have a rolling-release model.
Three of these are:
On 01/24/2012 08:09 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
On 01/24/2012 09:08 AM, Michal Schmidt wrote:
On 01/24/2012 02:13 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
Fedora suffers an additional problem it seems - not only are there
large changes as part of many releases, but lately some of them
immediately stop
I have used Fedora, Ubuntu, and Arch. I believe the ideal is a
combination of the three
1) A pure rolling release like Arch, upgrades packages when they are
stable without regard to external impacts. The early adoption of
Python 3 in Arch broke many packages and took awhile to fix.
2) Ubuntu
On 01/24/2012 08:21 PM, Mark Bidewell wrote:
Recommended Cycles for major upgrades for each group:
1) User - As soon as possible.
2) System - 6 months.
3) Core - 12-18 months.
Problem is that, it is often the case that 1) requires updates in 2) and
sometimes even 3)
Rahul
--
devel
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 10:03 AM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/24/2012 08:21 PM, Mark Bidewell wrote:
Recommended Cycles for major upgrades for each group:
1) User - As soon as possible.
2) System - 6 months.
3) Core - 12-18 months.
Problem is that, it is often the case
On 01/24/2012 08:54 PM, Mark Bidewell wrote:
1) I don't think that many changes in the user section would rely
heavily on new libraries. (Firefox 9 and Libreoffice both run fine on
Ubuntu 10.04 LTS which is almost 2 years old).
Only if they bundle libraries.
Rahul
--
devel mailing list
On 01/24/2012 03:39 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
On 01/24/2012 09:08 AM, Michal Schmidt wrote:
On 01/24/2012 02:13 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
Fedora suffers an additional problem it seems - not only are there
large changes as part of many releases, but lately some of them
immediately stop
Am 24.01.2012 15:48, schrieb Rahul Sundaram:
On 01/24/2012 08:09 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
On 01/24/2012 09:08 AM, Michal Schmidt wrote:
On 01/24/2012 02:13 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
Fedora suffers an additional problem it seems - not only are there
large changes as part of many
On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 16:53:32 +0100
Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
Am 24.01.2012 15:48, schrieb Rahul Sundaram:
On 01/24/2012 08:09 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
On 01/24/2012 09:08 AM, Michal Schmidt wrote:
On 01/24/2012 02:13 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
Fedora suffers an
On 01/24/2012 04:53 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 24.01.2012 15:48, schrieb Rahul Sundaram:
You are ridding on thin ice here. systemd gets many many updates.
Claiming that it doesnt receive proper attention is very much
unsubstantiated. I think you should go back on this claim.
where are they
Am 24.01.2012 17:07, schrieb Michal Schmidt:
this is BAD because the version in F15 was a really EARLY state
services for F16 like cups rely on systemd-features that do NOT
exist in F15 - so you have no chance converting sysv to systemd
in an easy way on your F15 installation
I disagree
YAWN!
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.netwrote:
Am 24.01.2012 17:07, schrieb Michal Schmidt:
this is BAD because the version in F15 was a really EARLY state
services for F16 like cups rely on systemd-features that do NOT
exist in F15 - so you have no
On 24/01/12 16:21, Johannes Lips wrote:
YAWN!
Please don't, I've got Narcolepsy.
--
Regards,
Frank Murphy
UTF_8 Encoded
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On 01/24/2012 05:17 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
when i see that services which was not converted to systemd
needs features which were not available with the systemd
of F15 this is a clear sign that systemd was NOT ready for
a GA release
That missing feature is PathExistsGlob=, isn't it?
So the
Am 24.01.2012 17:37, schrieb Michal Schmidt:
On 01/24/2012 05:17 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
when i see that services which was not converted to systemd
needs features which were not available with the systemd
of F15 this is a clear sign that systemd was NOT ready for
a GA release
That
Le Mar 24 janvier 2012 16:03, Rahul Sundaram a écrit :
On 01/24/2012 08:21 PM, Mark Bidewell wrote:
Recommended Cycles for major upgrades for each group:
1) User - As soon as possible.
2) System - 6 months.
3) Core - 12-18 months.
Problem is that, it is often the case that 1) requires
On 01/24/2012 06:23 AM, mike cloaked wrote:
Having looked at the way releasing packages and versions in linux has
been moving in a number of distributions it is interesting that there
are several that now have a rolling-release model.
I have some systems that were upgraded across multiple
mike cloaked wrote:
Is there any support at all within the development community for a
rolling release version of Fedora (and possibly ulitimately Redhat)?
No. We've had this discussion many times. It just doesn't work.
There are changes like KDE 4 or GNOME 3 which can't just be pushed as an
On 01/24/2012 02:59 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
But a fully rolling release just cannot work (and this is also why all those
just use Rawhide if you want the latest, usable Rawhide etc. suggestions
are fundamentally flawed). Yes, there are distros doing this, but they all
have one thing in
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 7:59 PM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
mike cloaked wrote:
Is there any support at all within the development community for a
rolling release version of Fedora (and possibly ulitimately Redhat)?
No. We've had this discussion many times. It just doesn't
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 8:11 PM, Genes MailLists li...@sapience.com wrote:
Moving any large change has challenges - whether periodic or rolling.
In that sense, they are no different - both can be a PITA.
However, in a rolling model you have the advantage of it being the
-only- change you
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 11:13 AM, mike cloaked mike.cloa...@gmail.com wrote:
So how did Arch Linux cope with that particular set of changes? I
suppose Arch Linux collapsed never to recover? I think not!
It would behoove the argument you are making if you could write up the
summary of how Arch
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 8:52 PM, David dgbo...@gmail.com wrote:
A question please? Two related ones actually.
What are you going to name your rolling Linux release? And when can we
expect to see it?
:-) notice this.
Of course the decision about a name would be a really huge discussion!
On 24/01/12 20:52, David wrote:
A question please? Two related ones actually.
What are you going to name your rolling Linux release? And when can we
expect to see it?
:-) notice this.
Rooling rooling rooling Rawhde
):)(
--
Regards,
Frank Murphy
UTF_8 Encoded
--
devel mailing list
Genes MailLists wrote:
Moving any large change has challenges - whether periodic or rolling.
In that sense, they are no different - both can be a PITA.
However, in a rolling model you have the advantage of it being the
-only- change you need to do .. which is far less an issue than
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 9:06 PM, Frank Murphy frankl...@gmail.com wrote:
On 24/01/12 20:52, David wrote:
A question please? Two related ones actually.
What are you going to name your rolling Linux release? And when can we
expect to see it?
:-) notice this.
Rooling rooling rooling
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 3:12 PM, Rich Megginson rmegg...@redhat.com wrote:
On 01/24/2012 02:06 PM, Frank Murphy wrote:
On 24/01/12 20:52, David wrote:
A question please? Two related ones actually.
What are you going to name your rolling Linux release? And when can we
expect to see it?
On 24/01/12 21:08, Kevin Kofler wrote:
I don't think it makes sense for an individual to drive this forward without
any sort of consensus.
Kevin Kofler
I disagree, in a manner.
Not necessarily drive forward.
But at least have a presentaion ready.
With some facts, some analysis,
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 9:28 PM, Frank Murphy frankl...@gmail.com wrote:
On 24/01/12 21:08, Kevin Kofler wrote:
I don't think it makes sense for an individual to drive this forward
without
any sort of consensus.
Kevin Kofler
I disagree, in a manner.
Not necessarily drive
mike cloaked wrote:
So how did Arch Linux cope with that particular set of changes? I
suppose Arch Linux collapsed never to recover? I think not!
There are 2 ways rolling release distros handle this kind of transition:
a) They just push it. That leaves you with e.g. your desktop being
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 07:13:03AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
Or perhaps better asked, what
about rawhide makes it
unsuitable for use as a rolling Fedora release?
The rpm packages in Rawhide are not signed.
Regards
Till
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
mike cloaked wrote:
That way once installed there is no need to maintain and test updates
specifically for the current release. As an overall workload would
this actually be any more effort than the constant stream of testing
for the two current releases - as an overall picture?
Of course
mike cloaked wrote:
Arch has an extensive wiki and a lot of very helpful forums including
a valuable announce forum
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Main_Page
https://bbs.archlinux.org/
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewforum.php?id=24
If you like what Arch is doing so much, why don't you
Bryan Quigley wrote:
It's worth noting that the following already appear to rolling
components:
Linux Kernel
Firefox (forced by upstream policies)
LibreOffice
Wine
The funny thing is that Firefox and OpenOffice.org used to be the examples
(along with GNOME) brought up by the proponents of
On 01/24/2012 04:53 PM, mike cloaked wrote:
Having looked at the way releasing packages and versions in linux has
been moving in a number of distributions it is interesting that there
are several that now have a rolling-release model.
Three of these are:
Debian CUT:
On 01/24/2012 06:30 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
I dont think there is a massive user base waiting for a rolling release
really. Rolling release automatically implies a level of disruption
periodically everytime a major component is bumped up. Esp for binary
distros, this isn't that great a user
On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 21:47:09 -0700
Nathanael Noblet nathan...@gnat.ca wrote:
On 01/24/2012 06:30 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
I dont think there is a massive user base waiting for a rolling
release really. Rolling release automatically implies a level of
disruption periodically everytime a
On 25/01/2012 3:47 PM, Nathanael Noblet wrote:
I'd be interested in a rolling release iff updates weren't disruptive.
Considering each release usually comes with *some* issues. Sometimes
regular updates has issues (for example eclipse updates regularly
causes me issues - no hard feelings).
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 05:32:27PM -0500, Bryan Quigley wrote:
It's worth noting that the following already appear to rolling components:
LibreOffice
They are all upgraded to the latest stable version, quite regularly for the
currently stable supported release (F16), and I believe for older
97 matches
Mail list logo
