Re: Getting rid of codenames (Was: getting rid of "testing")
On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 08:51:18AM +0800, Yao Wei (?????????) wrote:
> How about getting rid of codenames altogether? Like we use unstable
> for unstable, experimental for experimental as it already is, no
> testing and buster but debian11, debian12, etc.
>
> Although it is eliminating some funs but it is much more predictable
> and simple to remember. I also confused squeeze with stretch.
>
By using symlinks at the apt repositories we can have both.
debian10 symlinks to buster
debian11 symlinks to bulleye
bookworm symlinks to debian12
On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 09:38:57AM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 at 13:11:09 +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> >
> > I guess only (most?) Debian contributors and hardcore Debian users
> > remember the order of the codenames and their mappings to current
> > stable/oldstable/testing and to numeric versions.
>
> Yes, exactly. This is a frequent request from those of my colleagues
> who mostly use other distributions, but occasionally have to interact
> with Debian, and can't remember whether stretch is older or newer than
> jessie. This is going to be particularly bad after the buster release,
> when buster and bullseye are current, and even worse after the bullseye
> release, when buster, bullseye and bookworm will all be relevant.
>
> Ubuntu is easier in some ways (because the alphabetical codenames go in
> a logical sequence) but harder in others (because the distinction between
> LTS and non-LTS isn't obvious from the codenames).
>
> Back when the release team decided on a per-release basis whether this
> was a "major" or "minor" release, we had the excuse that we had to use
> a codename for testing because we didn't know whether etch would be
> released as Debian 3.2 or Debian 4.0; but now that we've decided that
> every release is a major version, we can predict well in advance that
> Debian 10 will be followed by Debian 11 and Debian 12, so there doesn't
> seem a whole lot of point in obfuscating it.
So true
> With more emphasis on the version numbers, my non-Debian colleagues would
> still have to learn (or look up) which release is the current stable,
> but given that information they would immediately also know which release
> was the previous one (subtract 1) and which release is under development
> (add 1).
>
> Referring to testing in speech/writing as something like Debian 10
> alphas/betas/pre-releases (to express that it *will be* Debian 10, but
> it isn't really Debian 10 *yet*) might make more sense to non-Debian
> people, and might have the desirable side-effect of having more Debian
> contributors get the message that it's a means to an end (making
> the next release happen) rather than a product in its own right. In
> machine-readable contexts like sources.list it's probably best to use
> something like debian10 (or deb10, as in stable updates' version strings,
> or just 10) so that it doesn't have to change on release day.
>
> smcv
>
Groeten
Geert Stappers
P.S.
rolling symlinks to testing
tumbleweed symlinks to testing
--
Leven en laten leven
Reply to: