[Mageia-dev] How will be the realese cycle?
bgmilne at multilinks.com
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/
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 ...
7.0.530 available for 2010.0 and 2010.1 in backports
2.6.11 is in backports for 2010.1 (which shipped with 2.6.8).
cooker isn't even current ...
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:
0.9.28.2 in backports for 2010.1 to 2009.1:
1.1.4 is available for 2010.1, 2010.0 and 2009.0 in backports
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.
1.3.4 is available for 2010.1 and 2010.0 in backports:
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).
More information about the Mageia-dev