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

[Petko Ditchev]

Ah , I get your point . I don't have a clue how it would go ,but still 
best of luck in the endeavour :)

Petko

On 11/07/2013 02:00 PM, Rob McCathie wrote:
> 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 
> <mailto: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.
>>>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.manjaro.org/pipermail/manjaro-dev/attachments/20131107/2182f1d7/attachment-0001.html>