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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.alcove.com/ Technical support manager Responsable de l'assistance technique Senior Free-Software Consultant Consultant senior en Logiciels Libres Debian developer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Développeur Debian
