Re: [Vectorlinux-devel] VL6.0 Light Live

[Newtor <gen...@gm...>]

Hello All,

My definition of a live distro is two: 1) it's either the only release format for
a distro and acts as the primary install medium, or 2) it's a supplemental release
for a distro and acts as a way to "try out" the distro prior to installing from a
more standard install-only medium. I think VL falls into the second category and,
as such, should not be required to make sure the live environment is as up-to-date
as the standard install medium (let alone, _more_ up-to-date).

As an example of what I said above, if someone liked the live light but was having
troubles getting it installed we would recommend them to download the primary
non-live install iso to install the system, and then recommend that they upgrade
the kernel after installation. I don't see why the live distro can't fall under
the same criteria; install and upgrade the kernel.

I tend to be in agreement with Roy regarding getting the Light Live iso
out-the-door with the old (unpatched) kernel. Based on my test runs, and what I've
gathered from others, it has run very smoothly for folks. A new kernel, regardless
of how unimpacting it's supposed to be, always has some sort of impact and we'd
have a hard time knowing what the impacts will be without extensive testing. Based
on Roy's couple of test machines he's run across problems on both machines with
the newer/patched kernel. To help support this, I just upgraded the kernel on my
standard gold install on my laptop which was working great. After the upgrade my
wireless no longer worked. All I needed to do was modprobe the module to get it
working again, but how am I to know what else might not work as it was prior to
the upgrade. I really can't until I actually come across the problem, and most
likely it will be easy to fix, but perhaps not - and 'easy' to me may not be so
easy to someone else. Common sense tells me that if all I'm doing is swapping a
kernel for a same-version-kernel (same config) then everything should work as it
was, but I would be wrong, and I think this might be where Roy's coming from.

I certainly see the other side as well: We should provide an iso that's as
up-to-date as possible, especially in regards to security concerns, if we have the
ability. The problem basically comes down to manpower and testing. How long do we
wait to release something? How up-to-date is sufficient? For instance, soho took a
several day hit because it was upgraded from kde 4.2.x to 4.3.x. At some point we
need to say that this will be what it is and move on; put the upgrade in the repo
for testing but not worry about making them work on the release. VL6 is based on
SW12.1. SW12.2 has been released for quite some time, and 13.0 is (I think)
nearing it's final release.

Overall, I'm just thinking that we should get the live distro out the door in it's
unpatched_but_well_working form so that we can concentrate on finishing SOHO6.
After all, SW13.0 will be here soon and we can start this whole rigamarole again
in a few months :D. Not to mention the spread out spacing of releases to help our
standing on the all_unimportant_but_important distrowatch rankings :D

That's all. If this seemed like I was being critical or harsh, I wasn't. Just
trying to help shed some light on my take on the release of Light Live. I'm okay
either way, just prefer the sooner release than the later.

Cheers, newt