[manjaro-dev] Static (non-rolling) option

[Rob McCathie]

True there are plenty such distros, but keep in mind that for all the other
major packaging systems users have the option of rolling or static.

For aptitude based distros there's rolling and static options, for RPM
based distros there is... but for pacman-based distros there's only
Frugalware, which I tried a while back and it and it's forked pacman are a
mess. Look at one of their 'FrugalBuild' files:
http://git.frugalware.org/gitweb/gitweb.cgi?p=frugalware-stable.git;a=blob;f=source/xfce4/libexo/FrugalBuild;h=eb8dba3c4f1b395b17d65d00fdd63b70a5f77e10;hb=HEAD

They took the elegance and simplicity of Arch's packaging system and tried
to supplement it with huge, complex scripts. It certainly isn't something I
consider an option.

Anyways my point is there's a niche remaining in the 'market' - pacman
based static distro.



On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 10:35 PM, Petko Ditchev <pditchev at gmail.com> wrote:

>  Just my 2 cents - I think there are enough 'freeze' distros out there .
> That's what's unique about Manjaro - that it's faster pace , but still one
> notch below Arch , so there's the added stability . I'd be happy to see the
> project expand , but the frozen-distro user-base has a lot of fully
> developed fully focused competitors for it.
>
> Petko
>
>
> On 11/07/2013 08:28 AM, Philip Müller wrote:
>
> This is possible and we already have some ideas regarding this topic.
> Actually Roland is working on such a thing with a different prospective.
> This will mean a different concept as we have it now. Also lots of testing.
> When we have some we can inform you. Might also want to look at frugalware,
> which basically does this concept you're talking about.
>
> Rolling releases have some downs but we try to fix them. We already slowed
> it down a little but most of the people need or like the current speed.
> I think adding a longer testing period in testing might help to get it
> much more stable. Maybe you point me to the edges on our current concept
> and what you miss right now.
>
> On 11/07/2013 01:25 AM, Rob wrote:
>
>    Heyas,
>
>  What do you all think of the concept of a Manjaro 'static' (or i guess
> we could loosely use the term 'LTS'), non-rolling branch?
>
>  It would give users an option where update woes are only a possibility
> once or twice a year, instead of the potential for regular issues that
> comes with rolling. (The forums seem to be proving my point more and more
> every week.)
>
> I realise if such a thing were to be implemented within the Manjaro
> infrastructure it means like 66% more space needed on every mirror (based
> on a 2-branch model).
>
>
>  FYI I'm kinda-sorta-probably planning to do it even if you guys aren't
> interested ;p
> http://www.paradoxcomputers.com.au/icebound.txt
>
>
>  So, is there any interest in running such a thing within Manjaro
> infrastructure?
>
> If you're interested, I'm willing to commit a lot of my time to it. I'm
> willing to pretty much oversee the whole branch if desired, including doing
> all the initial testing at update times myself, etc.
>
> However, If it were to happen, I'd greatly prefer all updates added to the
> repo be checked/approved by 2 people, so I would need to find one other
> person with plenty of packaging experience (and general Linux knowledge) to
> commit to it and be the second set of eyes signing off on package updates
> with me.
>
>  Regards,
>  Rob.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> manjaro-dev mailing list
> manjaro-dev at manjaro.org
> http://lists.manjaro.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/manjaro-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.manjaro.org/pipermail/manjaro-dev/attachments/20131107/92908414/attachment.html>