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

  • Shred00
    replied
    Meanwhile AlmaLinux 9 and their build system is already out.

    Leave a comment:


  • skeevy420
    replied
    Originally posted by Shred00 View Post
    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.
    From Rocky's page:

    Rocky Linux 9.0 will be ready for general release in the June - July 2022 timeframe after thorough testing and validation.

    In tandem with Rocky Linux 9, we are releasing Peridot, the new build system with which it is forged. We are excited to open source Peridot, which has been in development for over a year! This release represents our commitment to free and open source software as well as the longevity of the project which necessitates that Rocky Linux is built in the open, with replicable and verifiable tooling.
    So they have 9.0 coming up and also have their own build tool.

    Leave a comment:


  • skeevy420
    replied
    Originally posted by Vistaus View Post

    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.
    I knew you'd say something like that. I literally had, "Granted, Canonical has money." but I deleted it

    If Red Hat folds Linux is screwed...at least in the short term. So much of modern Linux comes from Red Hat that I don't think there is a way that ANY distribution or Linux company could single-handedly absorb all the developers that would be needing a job if that happened.

    Leave a comment:


  • Shred00
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Vistaus
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • skeevy420
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Vistaus
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • skeevy420
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Thaodan
    replied
    I don't get why the not use the Open Suse Build System.

    Leave a comment:


  • anarki2
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X