Re: getting rid of "testing"
On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 08:08:22AM +0200, Ansgar wrote:
> Hi,
>
> what do people think about getting rid of current suite names ("stable",
> "testing", "unstable") for most purposes? We already recommend using
> codenames instead as those don't change their meaning when a new release
> happens.
And for this exact reason so many people want "testing" not "buster".
This way they get 5-days-newest versions of everything, without having to
suffer broken uploads, broken dependencies, etc.
Using "buster" would mean that at some moment their updates suddenly stop,
and they have to manually migrate to the next version.
> Related to that I would like to be able to write something like
>
> deb http://deb.debian.org/debian debian11 main
> deb http://security.debian.org/debian-security debian11-security main
>
> in sources.list as codenames confuse people.
Hell no! Even though I'm among most active DDs around, I just had to look
up whether "debian11" means Buster or Bullseye.
It's same eg. for processor names: "Skylake" means Skylake, which is used
within 6 or 7 different numbering schemes. Even people who care what
processor that is will so often need to look up versioning numbers -- as the
public names are about marketing segments and so on, not about how a
processor behaves.
A code name is also so much easier to talk about, especially in speech -- a
codename is one or two fairly unique syllables, while a number is longer,
and it's usually surrounded by other numeric values within other semantic
domains.
Meow!
--
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Packager's rule #1: upstream _always_ screws something up. This
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ is true especially if you're packaging your own project.
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀
Reply to: