[manjaro-dev] manjaro-dev Digest, Vol 4, Issue 14
Ringo de Kroon
ringodekroon at gmail.com
Thu Nov 7 23:19:10 CET 2013
LTs depends how you set :-) people like also some update, totaly freez
up is also a bad..firefox needs and some security stuf is also needed..
once a twice a year would be bad..but mayby a system that will be better
testes from a Rolling distro and and work with little maintaince
release and mayby 3 tiles a year a Point release ..
but but i think is better so look for how to improve testing structure..
And mayby sometools where as developers can rely on will also help in my
idea..
But keep if there something comes as an LTS release version is a bad
idea to set as 'manjaro' :) mayby such as Manjaro based thing?
Most people comes to Manjaro because of Arch.
op 07-11-13 13:54, manjaro-dev-request at manjaro.org schreef:
> Send manjaro-dev mailing list submissions to
> manjaro-dev at manjaro.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.manjaro.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/manjaro-dev
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> manjaro-dev-request at manjaro.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> manjaro-dev-owner at manjaro.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of manjaro-dev digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: "Linux Unplugged" show wants to talk to us (Petko Ditchev)
> 2. Re: Static (non-rolling) option (Petko Ditchev)
> 3. Re: Static (non-rolling) option (Rob McCathie)
> 4. Re: Static (non-rolling) option (Petko Ditchev)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 13:28:34 +0200
> From: Petko Ditchev <pditchev at gmail.com>
> To: manjaro-dev at manjaro.org
> Subject: Re: [manjaro-dev] "Linux Unplugged" show wants to talk to us
> Message-ID: <527B7962.9080001 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> On 11/06/2013 09:57 PM, Carl Duff wrote:
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TeLVt21_Fw
>>
>> 58:00 mark
>>
> :D I was just listening to the show , while reading my mail and saw this
> post at this point of the video . So , just as a viewer and a Manjaro
> user (+translator some times) I'd love to hear you on the show .
>
> Petko
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 13:35:16 +0200
> From: Petko Ditchev <pditchev at gmail.com>
> To: manjaro-dev at manjaro.org
> Subject: Re: [manjaro-dev] Static (non-rolling) option
> Message-ID: <527B7AF4.8080000 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed"
>
> 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 M?ller 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/20131107/738f0097/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 23:00:29 +1100
> From: Rob McCathie <korrode at gmail.com>
> To: manjaro-dev at manjaro.org
> Subject: Re: [manjaro-dev] Static (non-rolling) option
> Message-ID:
> <CAOunMDGS-UXGhm-=pU-=4dnG_QPHbm4_Cez97MyiFqd8YfLw5Q at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> 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 M?ller 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-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 14:54:32 +0200
> From: Petko Ditchev <pditchev at gmail.com>
> To: manjaro-dev at manjaro.org
> Subject: Re: [manjaro-dev] Static (non-rolling) option
> Message-ID: <527B8D88.1080607 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed"
>
> 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 M?ller 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.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> manjaro-dev mailing list
> manjaro-dev at manjaro.org
> http://lists.manjaro.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/manjaro-dev
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of manjaro-dev Digest, Vol 4, Issue 14
> ******************************************
More information about the manjaro-dev
mailing list