Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ubuntu Rolling Release Proposal

lists.ubuntu.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 92 posts

Re: Ubuntu Rolling Release Proposal

#31

Post by gtaylor »

yogo wrote: post #27
gtaylor wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of the counter argument is based on FUD and bad experiences with OTHER rolling release distros. I'm not sure we can look at Gentoo or Arch as examples of what Ubuntu would be aiming to do (and I say this as an Arch user). Within the proposal, it states that packages would be released when ready, and when stable. This doesn't mean that you are going to live on the bleeding edge like an Arch or Gentoo user may. Y…

I don't think it's so much on the bleeding edge in Arch as most people think and packages are usually upgraded in such a way so that dependencies don't cause problems in other packages (at least from my experience). The key has always been to always do a system upgrade and not upgrade individual packages, i.e. always run pacman -Syu or pacman -Syu . In four years I've never seen anything break (knock on wood) aside f…

Arch has been overall very good for me, but there have been breakages (and I experienced a whole lot more with Gentoo, though that was a while ago). Arch's systemd migration in particular was somewhat painful and the documentation wasn't great for the process (it has improved somewhat since). I seriously doubt that Ubuntu would expect their users to do what I had to do to apply that update (since Arch and Ubuntu serve very different target audiences). This is no knock on Arch, their approach is appropriate for their audience.

Because Ubuntu serves such a different target audience, I expect the whole update process will be more hands-free and possibly a little more smooth. Their mission is "Linux for Human Beings" instead of "Linux for hackers and enthusiasts", so this is a necessity.

Re: Ubuntu Rolling Release Proposal

#32

Post by qznc »

zalew wrote: post #3

considering the tipping point of me leaving buntu was being tired of the upbreak release process, I second this idea. they are basically adopting the debian scheme, only the stable releases will be more frequent.

Debian also has a roughly 2 year release frequency. 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011. Stable is already frozen so 2013 is likely.

Re: Ubuntu Rolling Release Proposal

#33

Post by qznc »

gizmo686 wrote: post #26
homeomorphic wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? I've always felt that they give me the perfect balance: the distro itself is non-rolling, so breakages (possibly) happen at known intervals, yet PPAs let me "go rolling" for a subset of packages where I want the latest and am prepared to handle breakage at any time.

I wonder if there is a way to build this process more into the package management system. Maybe have to sets of repositories, a 'stable' repository that would behave like current, non-rolling repositories, and a 'rolling' repository that would get new versions of software once they've been tested. By default, software would install from the stable repositories, but you can do something like 'apt-get make_rolling pyth…

Apt supports this. However, no distribution officially supports that scheme.

http://wiki.debian.org/AptPreferences

http://serverfault.com/questions/22414/how-can-i-run-debian-...

http://blog.drewwithers.com/2011/06/mixing-debian-stable-and...

Debian stable + backports is probably closest. Unfortunatelly, there are few backports. Partially, because few people use it and partially because upstream rarely cares for Debian stable.

Re: Ubuntu Rolling Release Proposal

#34

Post by sp332 »

qznc wrote: post #33
gizmo686 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if there is a way to build this process more into the package management system. Maybe have to sets of repositories, a 'stable' repository that would behave like current, non-rolling repositories, and a 'rolling' repository that would get new versions of software once they've been tested. By default, software would install from the stable repositories, but you can do something like 'apt-get make_rolling pyth…

Apt supports this. However, no distribution officially supports that scheme. http://wiki.debian.org/AptPreferences http://serverfault.com/questions/22414/how-can-i-run-debian-... http://blog.drewwithers.com/2011/06/mixing-debian-stable-and... Debian stable + backports is probably closest. Unfortunatelly, there are few backports. Partially, because few people use it and partially because upstream rarely cares for Debi…

Can't you do this with Synaptic? Include apt lines for multiple versions, then select "prefer versions from Oneiric". That lets you force a version for specific packages while not updating the whole system.

Re: Ubuntu Rolling Release Proposal

#35

Post by homeomorphic »

sp332 wrote: post #22
homeomorphic wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? I've always felt that they give me the perfect balance: the distro itself is non-rolling, so breakages (possibly) happen at known intervals, yet PPAs let me "go rolling" for a subset of packages where I want the latest and am prepared to handle breakage at any time.

PPAs should be for cutting-edge stuff, not stuff that was stable 4 months ago and hasn't been updated in "main" yet.

But "stuff that was stable 4 months ago" is not a trivial case either. Suppose A version 1.1 was stable 4 months ago, but that the version of B that works with A 1.1 is horribly buggy still, and the stable version of B needs A 1.0. Do we upgrade A? I can imagine this becoming very tough to mange with 20k-30k packages. I hope Canonical can deal, but I do fear that the users will suffer.

Re: Ubuntu Rolling Release Proposal

#36

Post by sciurus »

gizmo686 wrote: post #26
homeomorphic wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? I've always felt that they give me the perfect balance: the distro itself is non-rolling, so breakages (possibly) happen at known intervals, yet PPAs let me "go rolling" for a subset of packages where I want the latest and am prepared to handle breakage at any time.

I wonder if there is a way to build this process more into the package management system. Maybe have to sets of repositories, a 'stable' repository that would behave like current, non-rolling repositories, and a 'rolling' repository that would get new versions of software once they've been tested. By default, software would install from the stable repositories, but you can do something like 'apt-get make_rolling pyth…

This is similar to what the backports repository provides, After you add the repository, apt does not install anything from it by default. Instead, you have to tell it to, e.g. apt-get -t squeeze-backports install "package"

https://help.ubuntu.com/community/UbuntuBackports

http://backports-master.debian.org/

Re: Ubuntu Rolling Release Proposal

#37

Post by sp332 »

homeomorphic wrote: post #35
sp332 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PPAs should be for cutting-edge stuff, not stuff that was stable 4 months ago and hasn't been updated in "main" yet.

But "stuff that was stable 4 months ago" is not a trivial case either. Suppose A version 1.1 was stable 4 months ago, but that the version of B that works with A 1.1 is horribly buggy still, and the stable version of B needs A 1.0. Do we upgrade A? I can imagine this becoming very tough to mange with 20k-30k packages. I hope Canonical can deal, but I do fear that the users will suffer.

If it's a library, it should be trivial to have the latest A 1.1 installed alongside older A 1.0 and stable B.

Re: Ubuntu Rolling Release Proposal

#38

Post by loudmax »

I suppose derivative distros like Xubuntu and Edubuntu will need to follow suit.

I've had pretty bad experiences with non-LTS versions of Xubuntu. The last time I had a go on it on my laptop, things broke unpredictably, a little at a time. When I say unpredictably, I mean totally by surprise, not even after performing an update. First, Pulse audio stopped working. Spent a few days trying to fix it, then gave up and reverted to Alsa. Then the graphical login got stuck in an endless loop cycle. So reverted to text login, starting X manually after I'd log in. When wireless stopped working, I gave up. I run the LTS Xubuntu on two other machines and neither of them have had problems like this. I put my laptop on the LTS Xubuntu and it's been good since.

I'm guessing mainstream Ubuntu gets more QA and is more stable than Xubuntu. It might be harder for derivative distros to keep up with a rolling release. Or maybe not... this might give them more flexibility to QA stuff as needed instead of trying to keep up with a new release every six months. As long as Cannonical keeps the LTS cycle going, moving to a rolling release sounds reasonable.

Re: Ubuntu Rolling Release Proposal

#39

Post by homeomorphic »

sp332 wrote: post #37
homeomorphic wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But "stuff that was stable 4 months ago" is not a trivial case either. Suppose A version 1.1 was stable 4 months ago, but that the version of B that works with A 1.1 is horribly buggy still, and the stable version of B needs A 1.0. Do we upgrade A? I can imagine this becoming very tough to mange with 20k-30k packages. I hope Canonical can deal, but I do fear that the users will suffer.

If it's a library, it should be trivial to have the latest A 1.1 installed alongside older A 1.0 and stable B.

With potentially hundreds of different packages playing the role of B, this could eat up a lot of manpower. What if the breakage is subtle and not well known upstream? While it could work, it sounds like something that would take a lot of QA work by Canonical.

Re: Ubuntu Rolling Release Proposal

#40

Post by vacri »

smogzer wrote: post #29

I can't use Ubuntu, I've tried countless times, the experience sucks. I'm trying mint, and i can't even access latest libraries, everything is old, no partition resizing during installation, lack of distro tools and lack of polish; in mageia everything is fresh and if it not the free support quickly updates them. Mandriva had rolling releases with cooker and mageia has also with cauldron. Sorry for looking like a tro…

If you need the bleeding edge of a package, install that package from a pinned archive (or similar). If you need the bleeding edge of everything, I don't believe you. If you just want the bleeding edge because 'hey, it feels cool', then you're not the target demographic for ubuntu - something they stated from the outset.
Post reply on HN