Re: Bug#165365: reopen
On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 06:22:21PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> You can write in a version number too, though the format is not so nice..
> Perhaps you should ask ftpmaster to include version symlinks that don't
> include the release sub version. I think that's a good idea and then
> you can encourage people to use '3.0' in their S.L and '3.0' as their
> pinning specs.
Will try to think of it :)
> Personally I think the last release is going to be the last one that uses
> codenames at all. They only existed to make FTP maintinance easier and the
> pool scheme is a much better approach.
Well, maybe. However, codenames
1/ have an affective aspect that numeric versions don't have
2/ provide a means of talking about a release before it gets a numeric
version assigned
Thus I'm not sure they will disappear at all. I also note that at
least RH and MDK also codename their releases. In another world
ChorusOS also does - and I don't remember that this as as much of a
technical meaning than what we had ourselves :)
> It doesn't work that way anymore. unstable is called unstable,
> it has no code name and no version number.
Sure.
> Testing is the closest thing to what unstable used to be, but the way it
> is used today you either follow testing or you don't. It's pointless to
> only track testing until a release happens then fall back to stable -
> unless we are nearing a release, in which case testing will have a release
> version number, and you can pin to it.
Yes, that was my primary concern. It may be reasonable enough for me :)
Thanks,
--
Yann Dirson <Yann.Dirson@fr.alcove.com> http://www.alcove.com/
Technical support manager Responsable de l'assistance technique
Senior Free-Software Consultant Consultant senior en Logiciels Libres
Debian developer (dirson@debian.org) Développeur Debian
Reply to: