[Mageia-dev] Release cycles proposals, and discussion

Wed Jun 15 00:51:07 CEST 2011

Le mercredi 15 juin 2011 à 02:33 +0900, Jehan Pagès a écrit :
+
+> >> And as I said in another mail, if people want to follow arch linux and
+> >> do a better job, maybe they should start to explain what are the weak
+> >> points of the distribution and then do proposal on stuff that can be
+> >> done better instead of asking to copy cat hoping this would be better.
+> >
+> > I don't want a full rolling release, because of the listed disadvantages.
+> > So, if you ask me what is "wrong" with Arch, I would say:
+> > * due to the rolling release, it's nearly vanilla. This doesn't match
+> > requirements of Mageia
+> > * no innovations (because of vanilla)
+> > * a rolling core system has a negative correlation with it's stability
+> > * heavy work load
+> > * ...
+> >
+> > So, I don't ask for a copy of Arch nor any other distribution. I asked
+> > (although it wasn't my idea) for something new. An compromise: a light
+> > rolling release.
+> >
+> > Further lack of clarity?
+> 
+> So basically what people call a "light" rolling release in this thread
+> is a rolling release where packages are tested and integrated? And
+> what you call a (non-light) rolling release is a development rolling
+> release (cooker, cauldron…) where packages are just dropped without
+> prior security checked as fast as they are made available by their
+> respective authors?
+
+Then light is what arch does. They do tests before migrating. Now, this
+can be done faster because the integration is minimal, per philosophy
+( ie, you take care of configuration and fixing everything ). Heck, we
+could even fully automate that with mdvsys upgrade.
+
+> If so, I would say, yeah obviously "light" (I find this naming quite
+> paradoxical then) is the kind of rolling I would like. And that's not
+> that new, that's the kind of rolling release in Gentoo (which I found
+> much more stable than my years of experience in Mandriva, and also
+> more peaceful as I don't have to fear the big update every 6 months
+> which will definitely break a lot of small stuffs everywhere at once).
+
+Having lost access to my server for a whole weekend due to a library
+upgrade on Gentoo ( some stuff linked to libncurses or libreadline, so
+no more shell ), I beg to disagree.
+
+Also, gentoo seems to be updating more slowly nowadays :/ hence the
+stability
+
+> Also yes, I guess this could be simulated using the current backport
+> system becoming a supported repo (with package getting appropriately
+> tested and the right integration into the distribution done). I don't
+> say this is the ideal system, but that can be a first step in the
+> evolution.
+
+The problem is that the more testing we add, the more ressources it
+requires, and the more time it requires. And soon, people will complain
+that "packages are too old". 
+
+But if that what people want, we can have the same QA for backports and
+for updates. But then I hope there will be many testers.
+-- 
+Michael Scherer
+
+