Mageia forum

I want Mageia if possible be Rolling Release please , i want packages updated always every day, fglrx and wicd (network manager),others,kernels,all

I agree

thanks if mageia is rolling be eccelent dist of linux always

The release model was one of the long and very lively discussions we had in public earlier in the mailing list mageia-discuss. There were several models, from the traditional 6/8/12 months release cycle, to a "rolling light" using backports similar as Debian, to the full rolling release model as Arch Linux uses. There were supporters for all models.

As we are focussed on presenting a first stable release in early June we decided to postpone this discussion (and the final decision) until after the first release, not to let this distract us from our most important task. So, no, there has been no decision yet, time for re-opening this discussion will come after our first final release, I am sure!

I'm up for a RR but I guess there good an bad reasons. In my view; constant updates and possible breakages v's the heavy download and burning cycle + updates. I'm sure a healthy discussion will open other constants and uncertainties. but wouldn't it be cool......

Jim

I tried to gather various arguments for various release models when the discussion what very active about this subject, until the decision was postponed.

Here is the result of my little study, if you want to comment :

http://piratepad.net/CHSWq6ZRz2

Disclaimer : this is not an official mageia document, just my contribution to the debate.

I think the best way is to have two repositories, one not rolling and an another one rolling. So you might meet the needs of all users. This way is like the opensuse tumbleweed repo.

dave wrote:I think the best way is to have two repositories, one not rolling and an another one rolling. So you might meet the needs of all users. This way is like the opensuse tumbleweed repo.

yes good idea have 2 repositories one rolling and not rolling stable repo

- what a mountain of work this would be?
- what that would mean to mirrors?
- what we would face in user support when not-so-experienced people start mixing those two repos?

I am a friend of rolling releases but I would not recommend having 2 distributions side by side.

dave wrote:I think the best way is to have two repositories, one not rolling and an another one rolling. So you might meet the needs of all users. This way is like the opensuse tumbleweed repo.

We already have the backports repository.

Maybe I'm missing something, but doesn't "cauldron" already provide exactly what the "rolling release" junkies are looking for?

The whole point of having a stable release is exactly that: stablility. The "rolling release" model is way too fragile for users who want things to Just Work (TM). In rolling release, breakage is not only possible, but ultimately inevitable--the only question is how bad the damage will be.

In the current scheme of things, folks who prefer latest/greatest/buggiest software can run cauldron, while folks who want stability can run the stable release. Which is the best of both worlds, yes? Or am I totally missing something?

You can't use backports for all the system and cauldron isn't so stable.

dave wrote:... and cauldron isn't so stable.

But "rolling releases" are unstable by design. That's the whole point: they sacrifice stability for trendiness. Rolling release is for hobbyists, tinkerers, and people who are willing to risk breakage.

If Mageia wants to limit itself to being a hobbyist distro, that's their choice, of course. But there is a reason why all of the "big name" distros have a stable release cycle.

House wrote:But "rolling releases" are unstable by design. That's the whole point: they sacrifice stability for trendiness. Rolling release is for hobbyists, tinkerers, and people who are willing to risk breakage.

I am sure users of Arch Linux will be happy to hear this news.

House wrote:But "rolling releases" are unstable by design.

Cauldron can be unstable because it is a "testing" release. If Mageia decided to be a rolling release, then tested packages could be moved to the stable repositories as soon as testing was completed, rather than waiting until the next scheduled distro release date.

Jim

jkerr82508 wrote:

House wrote:But "rolling releases" are unstable by design.

....................................... If Mageia decided to be a rolling release, then tested packages could be moved to the stable repositories as soon as testing was completed, rather than waiting until the next scheduled distro release date.

Jim

Would be my choice, so +1.

House wrote:But "rolling releases" are unstable by design.

this is only your opinion is not entirely correct. I'm using arch linux and i have no problems. I've used gentoo too and... no problems. Rolling isn't synonymous with unstable. A road may have the cauldron repo with all packages in test, keep them a week for test and then put they in the rolling repo. After the packages have been well tested and are therefore deemed to be made ​​extremely stable even in the stable repo. This is not impossible as if I am doing the same with the opensuse tumbleweed repo.

wobo wrote:I am sure users of Arch Linux will be happy to hear this news.

You're making my point for me. Arch is the ultimate tinkerers distro.

Might as well remove DrakTools while you're at it. After all, Arch don't need no stinking GUI admin tools.

House wrote:

wobo wrote:I am sure users of Arch Linux will be happy to hear this news.

You're making my point for me. Arch is the ultimate tinkerers distro.

If you say so...
But that's not the issue here and not what I commented on (I'm not making any point for you here). It has nothing to do with the stability of Arch Linux and its nature as rolling release. Why do you see any relation between the rolling release and the ease of use?

Mageia cooker IS a rolling distro and it has all the ingredients for tinkerers, including but not limited to absolute up-to-date packages and occasional stability issues. So you can have them both: a stable Mageia released every 6 months and a rolling Mageia. You choose.

segfault wrote:Mageia cooker IS a rolling distro and it has all the ingredients for tinkerers, including but not limited to absolute up-to-date packages and occasional stability issues. So you can have them both: a stable Mageia released every 6 months and a rolling Mageia. You choose.

I don't think so. We are talking about a stable usable and "regular" distribution here, not a developper branch.
Cauldron is there for trying out innovative ideas, testing propositions from the community, new stuff from upstream, etc. It is a space for developpers and packagers (especially at the beginning of a new release cycle) where they also have the freedom to break things every now and then without a whole community being angry at them. Cauldron is not a rolling release distribution, it is a test bed.

It appears people are using "rolling release" in a few different ways.

1) Is a "bleeding edge" distribution, where everything is the newest possible version etc. This will suffer stability issues. I think this will be similar to Cauldron. Note that because Linux is now quite mature the stability issue may not be obvious to many users, but there will still be stability issues.

2) Is a tested rolling release. There is no major release just a series of "updates". This will still have stability issues. It is a reality. Again as Linux is mostly quite mature many users will not see these issues, and there will be fewer than option 1, but they will be there.

3) A major release distribution where the system can be "rolled" from one version to the other. So no need to be re-install each time a new release come out.

Note that instability is a direct effect of how "new" the packages are, and how clever the release control / update software is in checking dependencies etc. Even distros on 6 month release cycles have stability issues and I personally have had problems with such distors. Even Debian and RHEL both of which have very long testing / verification cycles run into stability issues.

Let us also not forget that at this time the Mageia team is small, and to do a "tested" rolling release is a very big workload as ideally each package and each group of packages must be tested before release. I think this is not practical unless many more people help.

Personally option 3 is the most interesting to me. The stability of a major release but no need to reinstall. For me stability is critical. I travel a lot for work, and two times I have found myself in a hotel 10,000+ km from home with my recently upgraded computer refusing to connect to the hotel internet, leaving me with no communication except a very expensive hotel telephone. This is so important to me that if Mageia chooses only option 1 or 2 then I will go to a different distro.

xyzzy wrote:It appears people are using "rolling release" in a few different ways.

Yes.

Let us also not forget that at this time the Mageia team is small, and to do a "tested" rolling release is a very big workload as ideally each package and each group of packages must be tested before release. I think this is not practical unless many more people help.

Yes, of course. That's why this discussion is just for gathering input for now. As I wrote at the beginning of this thread, the developpers and packagers are up to their ears focussed on Mageia 1 - there's no room for distraction now.

segfault wrote:So you can have them both: a stable Mageia released every 6 months and a rolling Mageia. You choose.

Mageia will be released every six months or once a year as the next mandriva?
I think the best way can be the debian-style:
-cauldron like sid
-something like testing, rolling (now wheezy)
-stable release (if mageia will follow in the footsteps of an annual release like mandriva)
From the other hand if mageia will be released every six month (like ubuntu) I think then it is useless to have a test repo as well as cauldron. But six months are few to pull out a stable product (that is ubuntu in the first weeks of problems) so I aim for a release every 8 months.

Yes let the developers do their work in peace now. After that we can go for a rolling release because it is stable by design.
Linus has tested the kernel and the KDE and Gnome guys have tested their Software too. Why tamper with it and risk instability?
Arch is bleeding edge with stability as a bonus. I think the tampering and hobby label for rolling release is pure prejudice. Arch is every bit as stable as Mandriva here.
I would vote for a pure rolling release.