| |||||||||||||
Time for rolling release focus?Time for rolling release focus?Posted May 17, 2012 2:33 UTC (Thu) by nickbp (subscriber, #63605)In reply to: Time for rolling release focus? by lemmings Parent article: Stable distributions and unstable software
You can more or less get this now with Debian testing.
(Log in to post comments)
Time for rolling release focus? Posted May 17, 2012 3:43 UTC (Thu) by lemmings (subscriber, #53618) [Link] Sort of. Continuous rolling unstable/testing distributions aren't what I had in mind so much. Like Fedora Rawhide, they tend to have moments of being frozen for release, breakage, and a mix of upstream stable/development versions. I'm more interested in continuous rolling stable versions of upstream packages with little delay. Ideally, this would be coupled with the ability to easily switch to a different upstream branch (e.g. development, SCS tag, or SCS head) on an individual package basis to allow the user to participate with testing/development on what they have time/interest in. I think Foresight Linux implements something like this. I'll have to try it out one day, however I would love to see the mainstream distributions migrate to this sort of model.
Time for rolling release focus? Posted May 17, 2012 4:45 UTC (Thu) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
I don't disagree with your points but these days Rawhide is never frozen. When a freeze is about to happen, a new development branch is created and Rawhide just keep flowing.
Time for rolling release focus? Posted May 17, 2012 4:59 UTC (Thu) by lemmings (subscriber, #53618) [Link]
Thanks for the link. I didn't realise Rawhide had changed that. I may have to try it out again.
Rawhide Posted May 17, 2012 13:37 UTC (Thu) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] Yes and no... In truth, Rawhide often runs behind the frozen release for the latest updates; many Fedora developers have made it clear that Rawhide is a relatively low priority. Rawhide can be a good option—I run it—but sometimes I think that Fedora has bitten off a bit more than it can chew by trying to develop Rawhide and the next release simultaneously.
Rawhide Posted May 17, 2012 14:42 UTC (Thu) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]
I don't think anyone would really describe the state of rawhide post-freeze as "development" - it ends up as a staging ground for things that can't be landed in the branched release, but there's certainly no expectation that it's a coherent release during that time. Whether there *should* be is a great question, and I'd agree that it's probably not very clear to an external observer what the expected behaviour of rawhide is at any given point in time.
Time for rolling release focus? Posted May 17, 2012 13:09 UTC (Thu) by tsdgeos (subscriber, #69685) [Link]
Archlinux does what you want as far as i understand
Time for rolling release focus? Posted May 18, 2012 17:06 UTC (Fri) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] OK, so you want stable (== no API change at all) while bundling the latest versions of everything. I'd like that too, and a pony while we are at it.
Time for rolling release focus? Posted May 18, 2012 17:22 UTC (Fri) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
Stable API doesn't mean 'no change at all'. WinAPI gets new functionality all the time without breaking old functionality. glibc and the kernel do the same.
Time for rolling release focus? Posted May 21, 2012 6:58 UTC (Mon) by filipjoelsson (subscriber, #2622) [Link]
Sounds like Gentoo stable to me!</sarcasm>
Seiously, though, that's the main reaon I still use Gentoo. Though claming there's no API shift is a bit of a stretch. :-)
Time for rolling release focus? (for such packages) Posted May 17, 2012 16:28 UTC (Thu) by perennialmind (subscriber, #45817) [Link] It's much nicer when you can install the individual package frombackports into a stable environment. Running testing wholesale isn't an option for most folks and transplanting packages directly from testing is problematic. (I'm not saying it can't be done well, but so far I've only managed to do so poorly). One often runs into the odd package that needs to be updated on a different schedule. Typically it's a desire for a newer version, but sometimes it's a package that is only available in the upstream release. For projects which push updates like Wordpress, Chrome, and Firefox, why not bar them from stable, but let them live in backports?
|
|||||||||||||