Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

RHEL-Based AlmaLinux Announces "ALBS" Access For Its Public Build System

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • RHEL-Based AlmaLinux Announces "ALBS" Access For Its Public Build System

    Phoronix: RHEL-Based AlmaLinux Announces "ALBS" Access For Its Public Build System

    AlmaLinux today made public ALBS, the AlmaLinux Build System used to construct the recent releases of AlmaLinux 8.6 and AlmaLinux 9.0 across all supported architectures...

    https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pa...x-Build-System

  • #2
    And the chart from the client's perspective:

    Comment


    • #3
      "ALBS" is a bit confusing in regard to Arch Linux's ABS.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by StarterX4 View Post
        "ALBS" is a bit confusing in regard to Arch Linux's ABS.
        How? How do you shorten ABS to ALBS? It's not Arch Linux Build System, it's Arch Build System. So it's either ALABS if you will (redundant), or ABS.

        Comment


        • #5
          I don't get why the not use the Open Suse Build System.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Thaodan View Post
            I don't get why the not use the Open Suse Build System.
            To quote the article:

            AlmaLinux making public its build system is intended to drive greater transparency into the project for finding out more details on package builds as well as what's being built at the moment, build logs, and more.
            Basically, because using the OBS ultimately means two things: less transparency by using a 3rd party as well as you end up being reliant on a 3rd party. If you're trying to be a world-class distribution, relying on a 3rd party to provide you compiled binaries doesn't inspire confidence.

            ALBS producing their own binaries in a transparent manner does inspire confidence.

            I wish they'd have picked ALPS - AlmaLinux Production System

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post

              To quote the article:



              Basically, because using the OBS ultimately means two things: less transparency by using a 3rd party as well as you end up being reliant on a 3rd party. If you're trying to be a world-class distribution, relying on a 3rd party to provide you compiled binaries doesn't inspire confidence.

              ALBS producing their own binaries in a transparent manner does inspire confidence.

              I wish they'd have picked ALPS - AlmaLinux Production System
              'Cause they're not reliant on a third-party now? I mean: AlmaLinux is based on RHEL, so what will happen if Red Hat somehow folds? Also, they can host OBS themselves if something happens to openSUSE.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Vistaus View Post

                'Cause they're not reliant on a third-party now? I mean: AlmaLinux is based on RHEL, so what will happen if Red Hat somehow folds? Also, they can host OBS themselves if something happens to openSUSE.
                That's a similar argument to not using Ubuntu or Mint. I just mean that there are only a small handful of unique distributions and the rest are reliant on a 3rd party. That's Debian and Ubuntu. What would happen to Ubuntu if Debian folded?

                Would anyone use Ubuntu if Canonical couldn't get a fix for Bash out fast enough because they're stuck behind me in the queue on the OBS? And that's why a distribution can't use that service. Could they self-host it and run it that way? Perhaps they could. Perhaps the OBS was too much for their needs so they needed something different.

                Really, though, the answers to those questions require follow up journalism. I can only speculate so much.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post
                  What would happen to Ubuntu if Debian folded?
                  Bad analogy. Canonical has more than enough developers to take over Debian development, even if just to keep Ubuntu instead of maintaining Debian and Ubuntu side-by-side. AlmaLinux barely has enough developers to develop Alma, let alone take over Red Hat development.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    How does all of this compare to Rocky's community and build transparency? I have to admit some amount of ignorance there but this does feel like Alma are taking the lead once more or rather "still" given that they have always been in the lead at least on terms of getting to GAs and supporting major version upgrades.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X