Re: CMSP 23. Have a development version flag

2009-10-13 Thread Damyan Ivanov
-=| Graham Barr, Fri, Oct 09, 2009 at 09:20:37AM -0500 |=- On Oct 9, 2009, at 8:17 AM, Ricardo Signes wrote: * David Golden xda...@gmail.com [2009-10-09T07:52:45] 23. Have a development version flag Agreed. * Con: Development version'ness would not be determinable post- installation

Re: CMSP 23. Have a development version flag

2009-10-09 Thread Ricardo Signes
* David Golden xda...@gmail.com [2009-10-09T07:52:45] 23. Have a development version flag Agreed. * Con: Development version'ness would not be determinable post-installation AdamKennedy Packlist 2.0? -- rjbs

Re: CMSP 23. Have a development version flag

2009-10-09 Thread Steffen Mueller
David Golden wrote: 23. Have a development version flag * Con: Development version'ness would not be determinable post-installation AdamKennedy Correction to my earlier reply: If we have the META info available *easily* post installation (cf. 33), my vote becomes a +1. Steffen

Re: CMSP 23. Have a development version flag

2009-10-09 Thread David E. Wheeler
On Oct 9, 2009, at 7:20 AM, Graham Barr wrote: Packlist 2.0? Agreed. The main use of development status seems to be control if the distribution is indexed as the latest released etc. So having a flag instead of the hackish way we use _ seems a benefit. +1 David

Re: CMSP 23. Have a development version flag

2009-10-09 Thread David Golden
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 10:41 AM, Steffen Mueller nj88ud...@sneakemail.com wrote: David Golden wrote: 23. Have a development version flag * Con: Development version'ness would not be determinable post-installation  AdamKennedy Correction to my earlier reply: If we have the META info