Santiago Garcia Mantinan wrote:
> Tracking down a problem with the source cds and dvds I realiced that the
> problem was with renaming the iso image, and that we had at least two
> different iso names, also... when trying to talk about this with other
> debian-cd team members, somments like this came out:
>
> - netboot/businesscard/netinst are stupid names.
> - netboot doesn't boot via network, businesscard doesn't fit
> on businesscard CDs and netinst can be installed completly without
> network.
i386 businesscard CDs fit on a businesscard AFAIK. They are 31 mb in
size.
"netinst" has reasonable justification for its name even though
it's often misunderstood. Most people do not find the base system it
installs very useful on its own without hitting the network for other
stuff. The name also dates back to woody.
netboot is a) not produced by debian-cd anyway, and b) actully named
mini.iso and only in the same directory as the other netboot images.
These names arn't perfect but they have a vast amount of documentation
already describing them[1], far too much to change before sarge is
released, and our users already have a broad awareness of these names
and what the images do.
> So... let's sum that up here and try to find some better names with
> consensus on them before we get images out.
>
> The problem came when we incorporated the jigdo stuff to our code, so now
> woody suffers already from this problem:
>
> we have: woody-i386-1.jigdo which generates debian-30r5-i386-binary-1.iso
> woody-src-1.jigdo which generates debian-30r5-source-1.iso
> and: debian-update-3.0r5-i386-1.jigdo which generates debian-update-3.0r5-i386-1.iso
> debian-update-3.0r5-source-1.jigdo which generates debian-update-3.0r5-source-1.iso
>
> So... you can see the two behaviours here, we have the same name but only a
> extension change in the update cds and we have a completely different naming
> in the normal jigdo cds.
>
> As far as our testing cds go, we've been generating them using the
> sarge-whatever.extension naming scheme, for all kind of images, jigdos,
> isos, ... but to be consisten with what we used to have around, I think we
> should go back to the old naming scheme, so, for sarge we could build things
> like:
>
> debian-31r0-$ARCH-binary-$N.jigdo debian-31r0-$ARCH-binary-$N.iso
> debian-31r0-source-$N.jigdo debian-31r0-source-$N.iso
>
> And the testing images would be renamed to:
> debian-testing-$ARCH-binary-$N.jigdo debian-testing-$ARCH-binary-$N.iso
> debian-testing-source-$N.jigdo debian-testing-source-$N.iso
No prolem with such a change of course. Haven't thought about what names
would be good though.
> I suppose that the "second names" (currently netinst and businesscard) should
> be appended in the full names, or we could even just change the "binary" for
> those "second names", giving debian-31r0-$ARCH-netinst.jigdo for example.
> What does people think about this better to append?
> giving debian-testing-$ARCH-binary-netinst.jigdo, or to substitute?
> giving debian-31r0-$ARCH-netinst.jigdo.
The second seems better to me, we will never have netinst source CDs.
--
see shy jo
[1] Tip of the iceburg: The 157 mentions of "netinst" in the installation
manual, which cannot just be sedded to something else since the
something else may need words around it to be translated differently
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature