Elive Rolling Release in alpha

It was said a while ago that Elive could be considered a "Rolling Release".

If that were the case really then it would be nice if "apug" also upgraded the kernel to the the same one used on the latest release ....... and on top that "/etc/elive-version" and "/etc/lsb-release(.elive)" and menu entries in "/boot/grub/grub.cfg" show the compatible release?

Upgrading a kernel with apug would require a reboot to get it loaded so if we want to really flaunt "Rolling Release": Maybe enable "live patching" the kernel? :thinking:

Or do we simply drop "Rolling Release" as a descriptive term for Elive?

I guess, Thana is doing it somehow via skel update....
Otherwise dist-upgrade should do this job, not so ?

No ! Or you could call every distro rolling release.

From: Linux distributions: Rolling releases vs point releases, which should you choose? | ZDNet

A Linux rolling release distribution is continuously updated in all areas of the operating system, including the Linux kernel, the desktop environment, all utilities and all applications. The distribution of installation images serves only as a starting point for a new system - they are usually called "roll-up" releases because they simply consolidate all of the latest updates into a new image, but they don't contain anything that would not be included in an up-to-date installed system. The installation images are generally only updated when the difference between the current image and the latest updated state becomes so large that making a fresh installation and then updating it becomes too large or time consuming.

A point release distribution puts out installation images on some sort of a fixed schedule, typically something like every six months, nine months or even annually. Each such release is identified by a specific name, which usually includes either the date or sequence number of the release. In most cases, between the major releases only security bug fixes and updates are made to the Linux kernel and desktop environment, but policies on utilities and applications vary between distributions. For example, most point release distributions continue to release new versions of Firefox.


" A Linux rolling release distribution is continuously updated in all areas of the operating system, including the Linux kernel, the desktop environment, all utilities and all applications"

.... this is what Thana is doing (or better: wants to do)
not so....

(if you generous "over see" the DE).

I don't think that upgrading the kernel is a good idea, ubuntu does that, and what happens: tons of users that "magically" their systems are unable to boot anymore (or wifi stopped to work), makes no sense to upgrade an already-working kernel "for that machine"

that is also made on purpose, as explained somewhere elive is a rolling-release in the every same way debian it is (and uses the same way), but as we know (already explained on that page), there's some features that cannot be added with a simple upgrade, for example

  • newer packages selected to include on the distro
  • personal / user's customizations

for the second one, people can use elive-skel at its own risk (we don't want to wipe out the user's personal configurations everytime an improved default one has been updated). Example: 3.7.11 will include an improved cairo-dock with wifi and hotkeys extra icons added

So in short answering this part:

  • it is made on purpose that grub shows statically the number on which has been installed (even if user keeps up to date its system with apug or personal configurations), its a nice way to remember the version on which has been installed and optionally, do a new install (upgrade-mode) in the future.

live patching is another thing and if there's really the need to update the kernel due to a security thing, then could be done via elive-upgrader interactively

on such case you should drop it also for debian itself saying that they are not rolling-release, because elive is using exactly the same way debian does

Ah, the "leave well enough alone" approach. :wink:
Nonetheless 3.7.10 has a 5.0 kernel where 3.7.9 has a 4.19 one.
It was what jolted my premier reaction ......... I did an an "apug" and then had to do a manual install of the kernel and headers.
Now: Kudos where they're due...

Having used Ubuntu for almost 10 years on my main working machines ....... I cannot remember having an unbootable machine. I have a vague recollection of a few times having to boot an older version in grub but that could also have been me installing testing kernels".
In general the kernel-upgrade works fine.

Exactly. Debian stable is NOT a rolling release, only unstable versions are. When Buster went stable, Elive followed.

That's not a bad thought and a friendly way of doing it. :applause:

Same here, but don't miss that they always drive with their kernels 'on the safe road' - they are always some version s behind ( at least on the LTS releases ) :hooray:

1 Like

well, in fact between debian-stable and debian-unstable there's no difference at all, basically "the package updates takes care about everything, like updates needed", the only difference is that debian-stable receives less updates fastly, but the packages doesn't change, when they are commited from unstable->testing->stable, the process and contents are just the same

if you where in wheezy, a dist-upgrade shoudl upgrade it to buster now, debian works that way. If you are in unstable, dist-upgrade simply upgrades packages over and over, but again, there's no difference between debian-stable and debian-unstable about that

I disagree there.
Just keeping all your packages "uptodate" is not a rolling release. That would make Ubuntu (that includes a kernel upgrade) a rolling release even more. Which it certainly isn't.
Crudely said: A rolling release does not have a "dist-version" but rolls into the latest and greatest.

The only pro thing is that Debian keeps maintaining a stable release for a very long time, though also not indefinitely.

I just ran "apug" on a 3.7.5 32bit Vbox install and looks like it's having some serious trouble booting:

but debian does that :thinking:

if you are in "sid" (unstable), you will upgrade packages forever, if you are in "stable", same thing... by other side "stable" has some specific details:

  • upgrades only happens every (around 2 months?) release update of debian
  • "security" and similar repos doesn't depend on that release-update (they can be always updated)
  • when "stable" goes from one release to another (like: stretch -> buster), the upgrade is transparent and you have the "latest-and-greatest" debian system

I could say somewhat indefinitely... upgrading like previously noted will include everything (kernel, grub, X11 migrations to wayland, etc...), and the packages are made to have a hassle-free migration

by other side, "sid" (unstable) is like the betatesting arena of the users (much more easy to break), on this stage the developers are known about bugs and makes the package able to upgrade with less bugs and more automation, including lots of times migrations from one thing to other, then, after 4 months of no bugs in sid, they moves to "testing" (a much less buggy environment), and finally someday, testing is frozen to become the next stable

You nailed it ! :rofl2:

May be we should switch to testing
( that's what we're doing anyway)

  • for that @triantares have more fun
    and we could rolling like a stone ... :rofl2:

'rolling like a ... Gem ??? :nanana: