Hi,
Am 29.06.19 um 23:32 schrieb Thomas Goirand:
> On 6/29/19 3:33 PM, Tomas Pospisek wrote:
>> Am 29.06.19 um 15:28 schrieb Andrey Rahmatullin:
>>> On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 01:53:35PM +0200, Tomas Pospisek wrote:
TLDR; year based release identifiers should be prefered since they are
Hello,
On 30/06/2019 06:53, Alf Gaida wrote:
>>> It will confuse me because in 2021 I will expect release 2021 .
>>> Furthermore, will .7 stand for July ?
>> I assume it's about point releases (which, again, Ubuntu doesn't do
>> AFAIK).
>>
> The keyword will be education - i wrote some times ago:
Another issue is that with a sequential scheme I always know what the
next version is whereas if a year based scheme is used without a set
schedule the version after 19 may be anything from 19 to 25.
Sincerely,
Moshe Piekarski
--
There's no such thing as a stupid question,
But there are
It will confuse me because in 2021 I will expect release 2021 .
Furthermore, will .7 stand for July ?
I assume it's about point releases (which, again, Ubuntu doesn't do
AFAIK).
The keyword will be education - i wrote some times ago: Let people use
wht they are happy with - it will take a blog
On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 8:16 PM Tomas Pospisek wrote:
> Let's seriously consider using year based release identifiers.
At this point in the thread it is very clear that which identifier one
prefers is very individual and dependent on use-cases. So we should
add support for more individuals and
On 6/29/19 3:33 PM, Tomas Pospisek wrote:
> Am 29.06.19 um 15:28 schrieb Andrey Rahmatullin:
>> On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 01:53:35PM +0200, Tomas Pospisek wrote:
>>> TLDR; year based release identifiers should be prefered since they are
>>> much more intuitive to reason about than codenames and
在 2019-06-29六的 20:21 +0500，Andrey Rahmatullin写道：
> On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 06:17:12PM +0400, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
> > > > > As others here I am starting to get confused by the release code
> > > > > names, as are my peers that are not that much into Debian. And
> > > > > sequential release numbers
On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 06:17:12PM +0400, Jerome BENOIT wrote:
> >>> As others here I am starting to get confused by the release code
> >>> names, as are my peers that are not that much into Debian. And
> >>> sequential release numbers are devoid of any semantics except for
> >>> their
On 29/06/2019 17:27, Tomas Pospisek wrote:
> Am 29.06.19 um 14:41 schrieb Jeremy Stanley:
>> On 2019-06-29 13:53:35 +0200 (+0200), Tomas Pospisek wrote:
>> [...]
>>> As others here I am starting to get confused by the release code
>>> names, as are my peers that are not that much into Debian.
Am 29.06.19 um 15:28 schrieb Andrey Rahmatullin:
> On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 01:53:35PM +0200, Tomas Pospisek wrote:
>> TLDR; year based release identifiers should be prefered since they are
>> much more intuitive to reason about than codenames and sequentialy
>> numbered release identifiers.
>>
>>
On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 01:53:35PM +0200, Tomas Pospisek wrote:
> TLDR; year based release identifiers should be prefered since they are
> much more intuitive to reason about than codenames and sequentialy
> numbered release identifiers.
>
> If Debian should improve/change release identifiers,
Am 29.06.19 um 14:41 schrieb Jeremy Stanley:
> On 2019-06-29 13:53:35 +0200 (+0200), Tomas Pospisek wrote:
> [...]
>> As others here I am starting to get confused by the release code
>> names, as are my peers that are not that much into Debian. And
>> sequential release numbers are devoid of any
On 2019-06-29 13:53:35 +0200 (+0200), Tomas Pospisek wrote:
[...]
> As others here I am starting to get confused by the release code
> names, as are my peers that are not that much into Debian. And
> sequential release numbers are devoid of any semantics except for
> their monotonically increasing
Am 25.06.19 um 08:08 schrieb Ansgar:
> 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.
>
> Related to that I
On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 11:38:36AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Simon McVittie writes ("Re: getting rid of "testing""):
> > distro-info-data.deb has this information for Debian and Ubuntu, in a
> > CSV file. It has convenience bindings for Perl, Python and
Simon McVittie writes ("Re: getting rid of "testing""):
> On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 at 12:04:39 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > [What is currently stable, etc.] is available via the ftpmaster API
> > service, and by reading symlinks
> > in archive mirrors. I
On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 10:16:33PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Yes please, let's use debian11 in the URL somewhere.
Because debian11 is such a buzz...
--
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Packager's rule #1: upstream _always_ screws something up. This
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ is true especially if you're packaging your own
On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 01:11:09PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 09:46:00AM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > > Related to that I would like to be able to write something like
> > > deb http://deb.debian.org/debian debian11 main
> > > deb
> "Ian" == Ian Jackson writes:
Ian> Stepping back a bit:
Ian> Can we have a comment from ftpmaster on their view of the rough
Ian> consensus here? I think a Last Call (time-bounded) would be
Ian> good. (I really liked the approach Sam took with the dh
Ian> discussion.)
On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 at 12:04:39 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> [What is currently stable, etc.] is available via the ftpmaster API
> service, and by reading symlinks
> in archive mirrors. I think the idea of having this information in a
> .deb too (ideally kept up to date in all in-support releases,
Michael Stone writes ("Re: getting rid of "testing""):
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 01:29:44PM -0300, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> >As a data point, having "stable" and "testing" stay around is very
> >useful for CI purposes. For example on ci
On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 09:15:49PM +0200, Alf Gaida wrote:
Only a last thought: Didn't we have really important problems to
solve? It might be only me, but i see the discussion as a minor
variation of bike shedding.
It may not be important to you, but it's evidently important to some people.
On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 09:07:23PM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
Think again about why we have release names at all: Debian 1.0 never happened
because somebody packaged a pre-release semi-broken version as Debian 1.0 on
their CDs. At that point, Debian chose to also use codenames to refer to
On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 04:50:39PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 03:10:27PM +0200, Philip Hands wrote: I know +1
postings are not really welcome.
I've been looking for an excuse to write slightly more than "+1" (to Simon or
Phil's messages, in particular), but "+1"
On Wed, 2019-06-26 at 14:54 -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> Wouldn't it be nicer to have a reliable and simple source of version
> ordering rather than relying on ugly names and symlinks? As a bonus, it
> would be useful for a lot more things and for more than n-2
> calculations.
That doesn't
> "Michael" == Michael Stone writes:
Michael> On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 09:01:03AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
>> I also should mention that I use all of stable stable-updates
>> proposed-updates and the equivalents for old/oldold. I have them
>> in the apt sources of a chdist so I
On 26/06/2019 19:58, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 02:23:40PM -0500, Andrej Shadura wrote:
>> On Wed, 26 Jun 2019 at 14:13, Michael Stone wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 03:10:27PM +0200, Philip Hands wrote:
>>> >I'm perfectly capable of typing slink when I meant stretch.
On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 02:23:40PM -0500, Andrej Shadura wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jun 2019 at 14:13, Michael Stone wrote:
On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 03:10:27PM +0200, Philip Hands wrote:
>I'm perfectly capable of typing slink when I meant stretch. The coming
>era of b* releases is going to be a right
Only a last thought: Didn't we have really important problems to solve?
It might be only me, but i see the discussion as a minor variation of
bike shedding.
To sum it up: Some people like codenames, some not, same for numbers -
the real question is: Does it really matters?
Over and out
Alf
On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 03:10:27PM +0200, Philip Hands wrote:
I'm perfectly capable of typing slink when I meant stretch. The coming
era of b* releases is going to be a right pain for me.
FWIW, I still confuse bo and buzz. :)
On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 01:29:44PM -0300, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
As a data point, having "stable" and "testing" stay around is very
useful for CI purposes. For example on ci.debian.net all our setup uses
"stable" and "testing" instead of the release codenames, and it's useful
to have a system
On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 04:13:00PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
Andreas Tille writes ("Re: getting rid of "testing""):
I never really understood why we need these codenames.
Simon McVittie wrote:
| Back when the release team decided on a per-release basis whether
| this was
On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 09:01:03AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
I also should mention that I use all of stable stable-updates
proposed-updates and the equivalents for old/oldold. I have them in
the apt sources of a chdist so I can easily look up old versions, do
apt-file searches on old versions,
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.
Andreas Tille writes ("Re: getting rid of "testing""):
> I never really understood why we need these codenames.
Simon McVittie wrote:
| Back when the release team decided on a per-release basis whether
| this was a "major" or "minor" release, we had
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 03:10:27PM +0200, Philip Hands wrote:
> The version numbers are also showing up on login and desktop backgrounds
> so I'd guess the bulk of users know exactly which number they're up to,
> but a pretty vague about which codename goes with that.
>
> Oh, and for me that
Michael Stone writes:
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 08:07:51PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
>>On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 8:04 PM Michael Stone wrote:
>>> Having "stable" in sources.list is broken, because one day stuff goes
>>> from working to not working, which requires manual intervention, at
>>> which
Adam Borowski writes:
> 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
On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 4:39 PM Paul Wise wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 2:08 PM Ansgar wrote:
>
> > 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
On 6/25/19 8:08 AM, 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.
>
> Related to that I
On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 09:43:02PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 12:40:01PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> and so on - i take the older releases only as reference.
I just do something like look at https://packages.debian.org/ssh
Or, if I'm really curious about
On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 12:40:01PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> > and so on - i take the older releases only as reference.
>
> I just do something like look at https://packages.debian.org/ssh
> Or, if I'm really curious about versions, then something like
>
On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 06:28:13PM +0200, Alf Gaida wrote:
On 25.06.19 17:48, Michael Stone wrote:
oldoldstable has the value of demonstrating some of what's wrong
with the current system
Can you please explain, i don't get it - maybe i to new at this. For
me file like
On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 06:28:13PM +0200, Alf Gaida wrote:
> > oldoldstable has the value of demonstrating some of what's wrong with
> > the current system
>
> Can you please explain, i don't get it
That name is stupid.
--
WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On 25.06.19 17:48, Michael Stone wrote:
oldoldstable has the value of demonstrating some of what's wrong with
the current system
Can you please explain, i don't get it - maybe i to new at this. For me
file like /etc/apt/sources.lists.d/debian.list:
deb http://ftp.debian.org/debian/
Am Dienstag, den 25.06.2019, 11:48 -0400 schrieb Michael Stone:
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 05:01:48PM +0200, Alf Gaida wrote:
> > Only a few remarks as former simple user and now maintainer:
> > * Please don't mix things: release names has a value, distribution
> > names like oldoldstable,
On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 06:06:55PM +0200, Benjamin Drung wrote:
Am Dienstag, den 25.06.2019, 11:48 -0400 schrieb Michael Stone:
On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 05:01:48PM +0200, Alf Gaida wrote:
> Only a few remarks as former simple user and now maintainer:
> * Please don't mix things: release names
On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 05:01:48PM +0200, Alf Gaida wrote:
Only a few remarks as former simple user and now maintainer:
* Please don't mix things: release names has a value, distribution
names like oldoldstable, oldstable, stable, testing, unstable has
their value too
oldoldstable has the
Only a few remarks as former simple user and now maintainer:
* Please don't mix things: release names has a value, distribution names
like oldoldstable, oldstable, stable, testing, unstable has their value too
* the value is that they never change - they are convenient. Especially
if one use
On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 02:38:43PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 08:03:49AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
Having "stable" in sources.list is broken, because one day stuff goes from
working to not working, which requires manual intervention, at which point
someone could have
On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 08:03:49AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> Having "stable" in sources.list is broken, because one day stuff goes from
> working to not working, which requires manual intervention, at which point
> someone could have just changed the name.
Once I had unattended-upgrades do
On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 08:07:51PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 8:04 PM Michael Stone wrote:
Having "stable" in sources.list is broken, because one day stuff goes
from working to not working, which requires manual intervention, at
which point someone could have just changed
On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 8:04 PM Michael Stone wrote:
> Having "stable" in sources.list is broken, because one day stuff goes
> from working to not working, which requires manual intervention, at
> which point someone could have just changed the name. Having codenames
> in sources.list is broken,
On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 11:09:06AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
~Ansgar writes ("getting rid of "testing""):
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
On Tue, 2019-06-25 at 16:39 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 2:08 PM Ansgar wrote:
> > 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
Ian Jackson [2019-06-25 11:09:06+01:00] wrote:
> ~Ansgar writes ("getting rid of "testing""):
>> deb http://deb.debian.org/debian debian11 main
>> deb http://security.debian.org/debian-security debian11-security main
> Yes, please, absolutely. And this should be the default.
> The syntax
~Ansgar writes ("getting rid of "testing""):
> 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.
Others have pointed
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.
On 2019-06-25 09:39, Paul Wise wrote:
On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 2:08 PM Ansgar wrote:
Related to that I would like to be able to write something like
deb http://deb.debian.org/debian debian11 main
Already kind of possible:
deb http://deb.debian.org/debian Debian9.9 main
With the caveat
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 2019-06-25 09:46, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On related notes: For Azure we currently plan (yeah, still not
> finished as MS does not provide input, be we still need to change
> it): - debian-10 - debian-11 - debian-sid
And docker hub have some
On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 2:08 PM Ansgar wrote:
> 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.
I use these
On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 at 13:11:09 +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 09:46:00AM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > Can you please elaborate on the "confuse people"?
>
> I guess only (most?) Debian contributors and hardcore Debian users
> remember the order of the codenames and
On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 09:46:00AM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > 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
On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 08:08:22AM +0200, Ansgar wrote:
> 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.
Even if
On Ma, 25 iun 19, 08:08:22, Ansgar wrote:
>
> 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.
AFAIK "unstable" is
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.
Hi Ansgar,
Regarding suite names (stable, testing, and unstable),
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.
67 matches
Mail list logo
