[openSLE] [opensuse-project] Report #1 OpenSUSE LTS/openSLE (Long summary) (fwd)

Boyd Lynn Gerber gerberb at zenez.com
Mon Aug 24 14:21:56 MDT 2009

This is an email we need in our list archive.

Boyd Gerber <gerberb at zenez.com> 801 849-0213
ZENEZ	1042 East Fort Union #135, Midvale Utah  84047

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 15:41:32 -0400
From: Jason Perlow
To: Boyd Lynn Gerber, Dag Wieers
Cc: opensuse-project at opensuse.org
Subject: Re: [opensuse-project] Report #1 OpenSUSE LTS/openSLE (Long summary)

I'm really glad you are doing this, and this is actually the reason
why I joined the list.

Originally I proposed the idea of doing "CentOS Green" to the centos
guys a bit back but they tabled the idea. Dag Wieers (rpmforge guy)
was the guy who was interested but he didn't have the right
introductions to the SUSE community as he was a Red Hat-oriented guy.
Now that Dag is no longer involved in CentOS I think would be a good
time to bring him in, because this will need dedicated resources to
work on it or at least a bunch of volunteers with a vested interest in
the project.

>From a wishful thinking perspective I would like to see a full-blown
openSLES based on SLE source. But I agree, this might antagonize
Novell if it was under the auspices of openSUSE and would have to be
spun off as a separate entity from openSUSE if that direction were to
be pursued -- which is why I was originally thinking the CentOS guys.
We could form a new home for it, but there is a lot of startup
infrastructure that would be needed.

I think the desired approach would be to continue alignment with
openSUSE as a openSUSE/Novell sponsored "flavor" of openSUSE, using
openSUSE packages, however matching functionality on a
package-by-package basis with SLE, although not necessarily the same
package versions, we would use the openSUSE packages. I think an "LTS
openSUSE Server" makes sense, something with a 24 or 36 month support

I also think that "openSUSE Server Edition" has a lot of potential if
we use SUSE Studio as the basis for compiling the distro, with some
sort of permanent download area. This would serve as a good "demo" of
SUSE Studio for Novell's marketing purposes and ensure their support
for the project.

On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Boyd Lynn Gerber<gerberb at zenez.com> wrote:
> Hello,
> Many of us have been thinking about this for years...
> openFATE #306982: Create an open SLES
> https://features.opensuse.org/306982
> really started the ball rolling on this idea and gave it life.
> I am reporting back the significant points from the new ML created.  To sum
> things up...
> We need a set of guidelines that must be followed.  These should include...
> URL's for the Guidelines we should/must reference are as follows..
> openSUSE
> http://en.opensuse.org/Packaging
> Fedora
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines
> We need to define a set of guidelines for either project we choose. These
> guidelines with be used and need to be reveiwed by someone with legal
> knowledge.  Once we define these guidelines we will post them as an RFC to
> the opensuse-project ML.
> So to sum things up.
> 1.  I see us creating a server OS with long lifetime.
> 2.  Packages have to be 100 % binary compatible with our defined target.
>     Only aberrations with removal of trademarks and or legal reasons are
>     allowed.
> 3.  Every change has to be reproducable and tracked via an available SCM.
>     I personally prefer GIT.  We need to make sure we keep in mind using
>     an OBS as the prefered method of doing the task of building and
>     releasing, and other things it provides.  This can be local BS or
>     on the OBS.  The GIT GSOC project bsgit(*) provided a great front end
>     to the OBS.  may assist us in this task.  The code finish code has to
>     be made publically available.
> 4.  Every code change to the project has to have a SR and the 3 positive
>    votes accepting it before it is published.  (Model after openSUSE
>    Factory).
> 5.  We need legal advice on the setup of the packaging guidelines.  (What
>    we have to remove to stay legal, and ...
>    (Not much in the way of legal would be needed for openSUSE LTS)
> 6.  The guidelines should be written down and rpmlint checks made where
>     possible to insure we abide by the guidelines and avoid legal issues.
> There are basically two choices as the subject reports.
> 1.  openSUSE LTS        A longer life spam of openSUSE releases.
> 2.  openSLE(S,D)        A binary compatible with SLES/SLED
> From all the information gathered from the various contacts openSLED is
> really not an option.  openSUSE and SLED fill this requirement.  So there is
> not need for it.
> So the group must decide on which of the openSUSE LTS or openSLES they want
> to do.  This is what I have so far on pros and cons for each.
> openSLE
> Pro
> 1.  security fixes are already done for the lifetime of the release.
> 2.  Smaller number of rpm's
> 3.  Server oriented without a lot of clutter.
> 4.  All that would be needed is to remove the branding and rebrand it for
>     openSLE.  A much smaller task.
> 5.  Binary compatible for SLES.
> Cons
> 1.  Possiblity of antagonizing the Novell upper management.(Probable)
> 2.  Not the most politically acceptable solution
> 3.  Needs legal advice to conform to legal requirements.
> 4.  Needs a legal entity to control the SLES subscription and have the
>     ability to get the patches to SLES. (Might be considered a pro)
> 5.  May need community provided local BS.
> openSUSE LTS
> Pros
> 1.  No real legal issues.
> 2.  The ability to choose just the OSS easily.
> 3.  Large base of openSUSE users.
> 4.  Definitely able to use the OBS.
> 5.  Community driven in all ways.
> Cons
> 1.  More packages that have to be paired down to a workable number.
> 2.  Community driven in all ways.
> 3.  Do we have enough people we trust to do back ports over the lifetime?
> 4.  Need highly driven members as everything will be on their sholders.
> 5.  I feel there will be more work with openSUSE LTS than with openSLE.
> It had said time and time again that the openSUSE community is free to
> create a community supported LTS and Novell will assist and provide the
> necessary infrastructure but will not help by maintaining any packages.
> Personally I really doubt there are enough willing and able people in the
> current community to properly backport e.g. security fixes, drivers for the
> kernel, and so on.  This is why I think the idea of a "cummunity supported
> LTS" won't work. (or at least will not produce anything  "One would want to
> run on a publice server").
> Therefore I fee the right option is the do an openSLES, but this as of yet
> has not been decided.
> * bsgit http://gitorious.org/opensuse/bsgit
> --
> Boyd Gerber <gerberb at zenez.com> 801 849-0213
> ZENEZ   1042 East Fort Union #135, Midvale Utah  84047
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe at opensuse.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help at opensuse.org

Jason Perlow
jperlow at gmail.com

Twitter: http://twitter.com/jperlow

Technology Columnist, ZDNet Tech Broiler (http://blogs.zdnet.com/perlow)

Blogger/Podcaster, Off The Broiler (http://www.offthebroiler.com)

LinkedIn Public Profile:
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe at opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help at opensuse.org

More information about the OpenSLE mailing list