[Mageia-dev] How will be the realese cycle?

Tue Oct 5 10:55:16 CEST 2010

On Tuesday, 5 October 2010 01:40:58 Fernando Parra wrote:
+> On Fri, 1 Oct 2010 20:03:41 +0200
+> 
+> Olivier Méjean <omejean-Qt13gs6zZMY at public.gmane.org> wrote:
+> > Le vendredi 1 octobre 2010 08:51:34, atilla ontas a écrit :
+> > > I'm just wondering if we follow Mandriva's release cycle model. Every
+> > > 6th months a release or one year and one release. I think we should
+> > > make one release in one year. By doing so devs and translators won't
+> > > be in rush in every 6 months. Also there are major changes like
+> > > systemd/upstart; those system related things will be more mature in a
+> > > year to use. It makes the distro more stable and decraese mirrors
+> > > space waste.
+> > > 
+> > > One more thing. Do we follow Mandriva's release naming scheme? I.e. do
+> > > we call our first release 2011.x ? I don't like this naming scheme and
+> > > suggesting using number of release as naming like Mageia 1.0 or using
+> > > code names.
+> > > 
+> > > What's your opinion?
+> > 
+> > What about a rolling distribution ? As an user (just plain user) I do not
+> > think that installing a distribution is a goal, just a mean to use my
+> > computer, so  wish i could not spend time installing a distribution every
+> > 6 months or every year.
+> 
+> Could we have a different approach?
+> 
+> As a computers professional I love the idea of upgrading my distro's
+> version every 6 months, but as a teacher, I simply can't do that, (maybe I
+> only can do that every two years)
+> 
+> But in my two personalities I want (and in determinated circumstances I
+> simply need them) some programs running in its latest versions
+> 
+> A different approach could be a "light rolling distro", let me explain. A
+> distro with a selected number of programs updated regular as their new
+> versions are available.
+
+This is already available, via backports.
+
+However, changing to a "light" rolling distro would force other users, who 
+don't necessarily want these updates (or, don't want to pay for all the 
+bandwidth for these updates, because they are happy with the version they 
+have) to download them.
+
+> Other distros are now trying this model, only for browsers as I now.
+> 
+> We can run a poll for select what are the programs in that list, and then
+> the devel team must tell us what programs can be upgraded due technical
+> reasons and what programs can't do.
+> 
+> My own favourites list is:
+> 
+> Openoffice (LibreOficce?)
+
+So, you want to force everyone to download 300MB of packages, because you want 
+a few new features?
+
+2009.1 got a security update from 3.0.1 to 3.1.1.
+
+If you want newer, use binaries from http://download.openoffice.org/
+
+> Firefox
+
+3.6.10 available for 2010.0 and 2010.1 in updates
+
+If you want newer, use binaries from getfirefox.com ... oh wait, there isn't a 
+newer firefox ...
+
+> Chromium-Browser
+
+7.0.530 available for 2010.0 and 2010.1 in backports
+
+http://sophie.zarb.org/rpmfind?distrib=Mandriva&version=&arch=&search=chromium-
+browser&st=rpmname
+
+> Gimp
+
+2.6.11 is in backports for 2010.1 (which shipped with 2.6.8).
+
+> Netbeans
+
+cooker isn't even current ...
+
+> Gambas2
+
+2.21.0 is in cooker and in backports for 2010.1 and 2010.0 and 2.20.0 is 
+available back to 2009.0:
+
+http://sophie.zarb.org/rpmfind?distrib=Mandriva&version=&arch=&search=gambas2&st=rpmname
+
+> Lazarus/fpc
+
+0.9.28.2 in backports for 2010.1 to 2009.1:
+http://sophie.zarb.org/rpmfind?distrib=Mandriva&version=&arch=&search=lazarus&st=rpmname
+
+> VLC
+
+1.1.4 is available for 2010.1, 2010.0 and 2009.0 in backports
+http://sophie.zarb.org/rpmfind?distrib=Mandriva&version=&arch=&search=vlc&st=rpmname
+
+> Openshot
+
+2010.0 got a backport of 1.1.3, I don't know if there are obstacles to 
+backporting 1.2.x to 2010.0 and older.
+
+> Wine
+
+1.3.4 is available for 2010.1 and 2010.0 in backports:
+http://sophie.zarb.org/rpmfind?distrib=Mandriva&version=&arch=&search=wine&st=rpmname
+
+So, of your list of 10 apps, 1 is up-to-date in updates, 6 are up-to-date in 
+backports (at least for 2010.1, 5 are up-to-date in 2010.0), 1 has had at 
+least one backport, 1 isn't even up-to-date in cooker, and the biggest one at 
+300MB hasn't got backports (but binaries are available upstream).
+
+I think you need to offer assistance in maintaining netbeans, rather than 
+asking that everyone be inflicted with the pain of a rolling distribution 
+(which wouldn't help you get a newer netbeans).
+
+Regards,
+Buchan
+