Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
SuSE Linux

OpenSUSE To Offer a Rolling Release Repository 72

Posted by timothy from the distinguish-from-nightly-builds dept.
dkd903 writes "While the rumors of Ubuntu moving to a rolling release have been brought to a halt, another major Linux distribution is looking to provide a rolling release. In a message to the opensuse-project mailing list, openSUSE developer Greg Kroah-Hartman announced a new project – openSUSE Tumbleweed. OpenSUSE Tumbleweed will provide a rolling release for those openSUSE users who wishes to have a rolling release. It will essentially be a repo containing the latest stable versions of the applications."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

OpenSUSE To Offer a Rolling Release Repository More

OpenSUSE To Offer a Rolling Release Repository

Comments Filter:

  • Linux Mint Debian (Score:4, Informative)

    by future assassin ( 639396 ) on Saturday December 04, 2010 @01:49PM (#34444868)

    For those who want a Debian based distro Linux Mint Debian will be a rolling release. http://blog.linuxmint.com/?p=1527 [linuxmint.com]

    • What's wrong with "Debian"?

      • nowt, if debian is your thing. For me? nope. I don't get along with it but many of my friends do. A lot of them have returned to the Debian fold after dabbling with Ubuntu and they've decided that they don't like the way Canonical is going. But that is decidedly off topic.

        I'm firmly in the Fedora/RHEL/CentOS Camp. Mainly because all the commercial S/W I use in my day job just works on RHEL/CentOS and can be made to work on Fedora with a little effort. But hey, choice is what FOSS is all about.

      • Figuring out which download to actually get for the current rolling ("unstable") since it isn't marked as (Beta|Edge|Unstable), it's marked as sid? (I don't even know what the right one is now)... then the installer itself is a PITA without any good walkthroughs on getting it up and running in the first place... then there's figuring out which packages are needed for even a fairly stock Gnome desktop.... Don't get me wrong, I'd love to run straight Debian over Ubuntu, or Mint... just too many hoops to jump

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by dbcad7 ( 771464 )
          Not sure what your talking about.. go here.. http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=debian [distrowatch.com] newest to the left.. oldest to the right.. I haven't found Debian any more difficult to install than Ubuntu.. but that's me. For a day to day system, testing has usually been very good.. unstable ?.. well the name says it all.. I know lots of people like to live on that edge, but I prefer not to... All that said, I do like Debian, but I haven't used it as my main OS for awhile.. not because of the difficulties
          • Okay, so my first mistake was going to the debian website to download debian? I guess testin is what I want, not unstable, my bad... Again, clearly defining which version to grab, and how to partition your drive, should be a big focus on the debian site, it isn't... it isn't clear to a debian noob at all, and your reply really drives this point home.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by dbcad7 ( 771464 )
              http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/i386/apas03.html.en [debian.org] ... If you'll also notice on the distrowatch link.. the default desktop is Gnome you don't really have to do much as far as selecting packages, it will install it. Partitioning can be intimidating for "noobs", but that is the same thing you face with Windows.. If you notice in the Install instructions above there is auto partitioning as well.
        • On the installer simply tick:
          [ * ] Desktop environment

          If the computer is already installed, do "apt-get install gnome" and everything is installed. What's so fu*king hard here?
          • Fair enough... my far greater issue is even figuring out the right version to get, which is where their website fails first and foremost, before getting that far.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Raenex ( 947668 )

          Figuring out which download to actually get for the current rolling ("unstable")

          Debian Testing is the "rolling" release. That's what Linux Mint is based on -- which is just Testing with a different installer thrown on top. Unstable is free to break shit, so it's not going to be used as a basis for a desktop distribution with any assurance of quality control.

          • Again, the point is even determining that... from the debian website' homepage, where would I click to find that out?

      • Nothing but whats wrong with say Mint Debian with a nice graphical install and improvements for non power users who just want a nice system ready to go.

        11 years ago I could sit there for hours at a time trying to figure out how to set up partitions/apache/mysql on Slackware/Debian for a home server, these days I don't have that luxury and I want somethings to be done for me.

        • I recommend giving Debian a try again next time you're setting up a server since it sounds like you may not have in a while. Of the items you mention, there is now a graphical installer, the installer will produce a sane partitioning scheme for you if you don't want to override the defaults, and apache/mysql setup is straightforward unless you're talking about a distribution-specific configuration GUI.

  • Excellent idea (Score:5, Interesting)

    by msobkow ( 48369 ) on Saturday December 04, 2010 @01:52PM (#34444892) Homepage Journal

    What I like about rolling releases is you get to deal with application incompatabilities one at a time as they come up, rather than having to spend a week or few all at once when upgrading a distro.

    I think it's also probably better for security, as you get the latest patches for the software. (I know the security patches get applied to downlevel releases as well by distributors, but that seems so cumbersome compared to following the application's software releases.)

    • My biggest problem is the handful of things that have to be rebuilt upon a new kernel release (namely VMWare)... It doesn't happen often enough that I always remember the proper command (I think it's vmware-reconfigure.pl)... and happens enough that I remember that I need to do it... especially when my VMs don't come up on my server.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by msobkow ( 48369 )

        I agree, as I have to maintain the production packages of our in-house applications. Dependency checking isn't all it's cracked up to be, at least not yet.

        What's needed is a way to register an application for automatic rebuild when one of it's dependencies change.

    • "What I like about rolling releases is you get to deal with application incompatabilities one at a time as they come up"

      Only if you can dedicate time each and every day to support efforts and you can afford not knowing when your system will be down for maintenance. Most people neither can nor want to afford that.

      "rather than having to spend a week or few all at once when upgrading a distro."

      False disyuntive. My experience with Debian (Woody, Sarge, Etch, Lenny) is that it takes me about four hours to calm

    • you get to deal with application incompatabilities one at a time as they come up, rather than having to spend a week or few all at once when upgrading a distro.

      Sounds like a complete nightmare to me... Install one server and everything works fine, then install the server next to it the next day, and its broken and wont work... the hell with that!

      I know the security patches get applied to downlevel releases as well by distributors, but that seems so cumbersome compared to following the application's softwa

  • Just how many distributions does he develop for? He's a openSUSE developer and a Gentoo developer, are there any others?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Zocalo ( 252965 )
      Isn't this kind of an irrelevant question to ask about most open source developers? Unless they are only working on some very distro specific tools anyway, and even then there's always a chance that it will be used in a fork or derivative distro. You might as well ask how many distros Linus develops for...

  • Seriously. I *like* to know I'm running a specific release that is fixed for a while so that I know what I'm dealing with if I run into problems, and so that if it's working fine I can *stay* on that release for a while. I also prefer not to run a release that is on the bleeding edge.

    "Rolling release" looks like a sure recipe for support/dependency hell.

    I'm assuming there are some positive reasons for it. What are they?

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by bfree ( 113420 )

      Support for new hardware. New features. Easier to contribute to development. Less obsolete versions of software. No need to wait months or years (or resort to compiling) to see stable released improvements on your system.

      That's the advantages in it's own right, there's a load more if you start to compare it to the reality of most "stable" distributions. For example, nothing forced in to make some arbitrary freeze, things appear as they are ready.

      • At the moment, most Linux systems (Apart from embedded) are Servers.
        This is ideal for LTS versions. i.e. Ubuntu LTS, RHEL, SLES etc.

        My biggest gripe is that producers of apps that are targetted for use on Servers seem to always want the latest & greatest versions of dependent packages such as PHP and not the versions that are supported on LTS Distros.

        UH? Why?
        A rolling release won't solve this. It will probably make it worse as the stable base provided by SLES/RHEL etc is suddenly not so stable anymore.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        > Support for new hardware.

        Removal of old, but still used hardware.

        > New features.

        More unneeded and unwanted API changes.

        > Easier to contribute to development.

        Harder to develop own applications for a faster movin target.

        > Less obsolete versions of software.

        More forced upgrades, more forced training costs, less bug fixes for older, but mission critical versions.

        > No need to wait months or years to see stable released improvements on your system.

        No way to avoid bad "improvements".

        All in all, fo

        • So then don't use a rolling release, if it doesn't suit your needs! Those of us running desktop systems, can still have our fun, right?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Kjella ( 173770 )

          Removal of old, but still used hardware.

          Not on the time scales we're talking here, if you're doing biannual or rolling releases has very little impact on driver removal. That depends far more on whether the upsteam project (kernel or userspace drivers) are doing API changes and whether there is a maintainer for that driver.

          More unneeded and unwanted API changes.

          Unless you mean UI changes, people don't work much with APIs. That's more for the next point.

          Harder to develop own applications for a faster movin target.

          Libraries like Qt, Gtk etc. usually take great care to be backwards compatible.

          More forced upgrades, more forced training costs, less bug fixes for older, but mission critical versions.

          At least if we compare biannual versus rolling releases

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by westyvw ( 653833 )

      Think about the software versions. If it were windows, you could have the latest application as soon as it came out if you wanted to, it isnt tied to the distrobution. Since most people use the packages supplied by thier distro rather than rolling their own, a rolling release means that you can get the newer software while avoiding dependency hell because the package maintainers already took care of that for you.

      I kept rolling along with Debian Sid for years, and even though during major changes (such as KD

      • Think about the software versions. If it were windows, you could have the latest application as soon as it came out if you wanted to, it isnt tied to the distrobution. Since most people use the packages supplied by thier distro rather than rolling their own, a rolling release means that you can get the newer software while avoiding dependency hell because the package maintainers already took care of that for you.

        I kept rolling along with Debian Sid for years, and even though during major changes (such as KDE 3 to 4) it can be trying, it works pretty well. And its fun to get new software on a daily basis.

        Microsoft achieves that by not attempting to bundle every possible 3rd party software under the sun with their OS. The core Windows software does remain stable for years, with minor changes in service packs and major changes in new releases.

        This is something I wish a Linux distro would do. Not rolling the entire damned thing, just get non essential software out of the damned repo. Make a decree that essential software will be included in the base OS, and other can go into the extras bin repo for sake of

        • This is something I wish a Linux distro would do. Not rolling the entire damned thing, just get non essential software out of the damned repo.

          and that's different from a minimal OS install (that every Linux distro is capable of) how? Its not like the distro guys are trying to FORCE you to use the firefox packages they provide. If you want to get it some harder way, go right ahead.

          Anything in the extras bin can depend only on thing included with the base OS.

          Now that sounds like a damn nightmare! Do you re

    • Re:What's the fascination with "rolling releases"? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Requiem18th ( 742389 ) on Saturday December 04, 2010 @02:33PM (#34445116)

      I have to admit however that this is an issue of virtually all linux distros.

      They confuse system software with user software

      Ideally the system software should be fixed for a period to serve as a platform for developers, while user software would be constantly upgraded.

      But alas, until this confusion is cleared you have to choose between having a stable platform or updated user software.

      Rolling releases make horrible targets for 3rd party developers, specially shrink wrap software vendors.

      On the other hand it is not true as you say that you don't know what release you are running or that you can't stay on that release.

      When you are on a rolling distro you are effectively staying on a fixed and well know platform known as the current release . That's all you have to know when you ask for help in forums so it's not like you are lost in a limbo.

      • I have to admit however that this is an issue of virtually all linux distros.

        They confuse system software with user software

        Ideally the system software should be fixed for a period to serve as a platform for developers, while user software would be constantly upgraded.

        But alas, until this confusion is cleared you have to choose between having a stable platform or updated user software.

        This confusion was cleared a long time ago in BSD land: /usr for system software, /usr/local for everything added on.

        • Re:What's the fascination with "rolling releases"? (Score:4, Informative)

          by TheRaven64 ( 641858 ) on Saturday December 04, 2010 @02:47PM (#34445214) Journal

          Yup, and in BSD land it works well. You update the system periodically, either just tracking security updates or updating to get new features, and you update third-party software independently. With FreeBSD, you have a choice of following the cutting edge branch (-CURRENT), which is not recommended for anyone except developers, the mostly-tested (-STABLE) branch, which is fine for people who want to play with new stuff, or a release branch (-RELENG) that has had some extra testing and generally only incorporates bug fixes between releases. Each port / package is flagged with the versions of the base system that it supports and can be updated individually. You never need to upgrade the kernel or core userland to get a new version of something like KDE or GNOME (unless it actually depends on a newer feature in the base system, which is very rare).

          The problem for Linux distributions is that everything is a third-party package, aside from some distro-specific management tools. Most of the time, these tools are relatively unimportant - you can easily work without them. It gets even worse when you try to do back-ports, because some things like glibc and Linux are very closely tied - for example, the RHEL kernel contains a couple of back-ported system calls that don't have the their glibc wrappers, so you can only get at them by making the system call directly, rather than via the libc interface.

        • Right now all I can think of is penguins facing down at high noon, silence punctuated only by the creak of flexing pocket protectors and the swish of the aforementioned knotted weeds as they sail by.

          Yes. Sanity has departed me.
      • Slackware gets this right on their -current rolling branch (or at least they used to get it right). Keep the system as stable as possible, and give users the most recent user-facing software. Heck, they are still using LILO: if it ain't broke, don't fix it!

      • Surely a backports repo does exactly that?

        • How do backports help shrink wrap vendors on a rolling release? No no no, rolling releases are more of a FOSS thing, meaning FOSS software always runs better than prepackaged ones because they are also constantly updated.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by icebike ( 68054 )

      Seriously. I *like* to know I'm running a specific release that is fixed for a while so that I know what I'm dealing with if I run into problems, and so that if it's working fine I can *stay* on that release for a while. I also prefer not to run a release that is on the bleeding edge.

      "Rolling release" looks like a sure recipe for support/dependency hell.

      I'm assuming there are some positive reasons for it. What are they?

      Well actually, my take is that a rolling release is designed to prevent running bleeding edge and dependency hell. That is the whole theory behind it.

      In theory it should be less disruptive to replace AND TEST and Distribute one package at a time, rather than the current "blow it all away and start over" every 6 to 18 months with a new cute animal name.

      Of course the devil is in the details and the execution.

      If they let package maintainers push their latest package into the rolling release as Greg Kroah-Hart

  • This is a great option for those who would want such a thing. And, upon further consideration, I think that I might just be such a person. Having each appliation synched to its own release schedule rather than to the operating system's sounds is very practical. Also, I like the name.

  • Gentoo? (Score:3, Informative)

    by ajclements ( 1529359 ) on Saturday December 04, 2010 @02:30PM (#34445106)
    This is basically what Gentoo does. The only numbered releases they have are the annualish install discs. And if you go with the minimal install, even that doesn't draw much from the install medium, you download all the current packages.
  • Does anyone know if packman will have repositories that go along with tumbleweed?

  • Awesome news, too bad we're talking about Suse.

    I'll use WindowsME, thanks.

  • ...in an attempt to demonstrate that they're still relevant, now that they've been acquired by a company that nobody's heard of.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by int69h ( 60728 )

      It was maintained by a company that nobody had heard of for longer than it was by Novell. Somehow I'm sure they'll get by.

  • Fedora has a rolling, rolling, rolling release called rawhide.

  • The whole model is still too distribution centric, and not making enough allowance for the difference between one user and another. We all have our own set of mission critical applications. Sometimes a critical application needs to be stable above all else, even if it's long out of date. Sometimes it must be the last major release, even if the release has many problems. Sometimes you need both, and a way to control which is the default and which is the sandbox.

    If I'm working with a bleeding edge C++ com

  • Poor choice of a name (Score:3)

    by kimvette ( 919543 ) on Sunday December 05, 2010 @12:34AM (#34448580) Homepage Journal

    Given the situation that SUSE is in right now (being spun off of Novell, with its future in question) naming a distribution after a weed often depicted in popular media as a sign of a deserted down is not the best choice.

    Why not just say "OpenSUSE/SUSE users who want the latest and greatest apps can enable the 'Factory' repository?"

    • I was going to ask the same question, but read TFA and realised this isn't quite the same as "OpenSUSE Factory", it's more like a kind of "OpenSUSE Factory Stable".
  • ... since "Rawhide" went off the air. Okay, let's all sing along now ...

Slashdot Top Deals

After all is said and done, a hell of a lot more is said than done.

Close