Tnx for ur detailed answer, Robert. Indeed a difficult subject and I've seen similar topics in other mailing lists (i.e. Dovecot). In this case, Vyatta announcing a 2.2 Beta release on the user list, I personally would like to see that reflected in the version number. When 'testing' is promoted to 'main', strip the Beta part. As long as it has Beta you know the upgrade came from 'testing'. The version numbers of each package is still important for very selective upgrades within a release. By upgrading to 'testing' I would expect to see a 2.2beta version until promoted and a new CD becomes available which will then undoubtly be vc2.2. The last CD (from main) was vc2.1. In the same way, if I would dare to upgrade to 'experimental', I would expect a vc2.2Alpha version number. Each release (main, testing, experimental) brings a list of minimum versions of the sub-packages.
How about my remark about the input box on the web page for the new 'show version ...'? Why a list of all options to 'show version' in the left frame but hen a single choice in the right frame that must be copied to the inputbox by hand? Make all left frame 'show version <option>' complete commands with just a execute button. Another option would be to have a pull down list of options in the right frame and just one line 'show version' in the left frame. Its a bit clumsy now. I can choose for 'show version all' but fill in 'deleted' effectively executing 'show version deleted'. Do you see what I mean or do I get this as a nasty side effect of upgrading? CU Egbert Jan (NL) > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Robert Bays > Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 8:43 PM > Cc: vyatta router > Subject: Re: [Vyatta-users] Vyatta version 2.2 (Camarillo) > releasedto testing > > > Hi Egbert, > > The way it works right now is that the version number will > only increment when we promote packages from the testing to > the main component of the community package repo. At that > point, the collection of packages we promote will be assigned > a global release number. (Or another way of looking at it is > that a global release number will *very > loosely* define a set of packages.) Then if you upgrade from > the main component, you will get the new version number in > etc/version. > > Right now we don't apply version numbers to the testing or > experimental components because they are fairly dynamic in > nature and we think we might see issues with people > subscribed to multiple components. So if you upgrade from > experimental or testing you will see your previous version > file if you run "show version". Now that doesn't help you > identify what packages you are actually running after the > upgrade. So we have added options to the "show version" > command that will show you the delta between the packages > that you currently have installed vs. the packages that are > associated with your previously installed "promoted to main" > version. See "show version > (all|upgraded|downgraded|deleted|added)". Clear as mud, right? > > This is a topic we have been debating internally for > months... "What does a global version number mean when you > are trying to distribute everything as packages?" As context > for the debate think of how Debian or Redhat handles global > version numbers vs. updates... Very flexible as to what is > installed (through packages), but one global version that > changes very infrequently. To understand what you are really > running you have to look at the individual package release > number. Compare that to Cisco, inflexible as to the contents > of the whole install (i.e. I can't really remove ACLs if I > don't want them or downgrade to the previous version of just > the BGP instance) but you always know exactly what version > you are running. > > We are open to suggestions about a better way to handle this > and we can go into more details re: potential package > dependency problems we foresee. If anyone in userland wants > to discuss further, we can take the topic over to the hackers > forum. Feedback is always welcome and appreciated. > > Cheers, > Robert. > > Egbert Jan wrote: > > Hi Dave, Thanks for your efforts to 'release' vc2.2. I > followed your > > instructions but I'm not sure everything worked out as > expected. When > > I do a 'show version' I get: > > > > Version: vc2.1 > > Built by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Built on: 200705292133 -- Tue May 29 21:33:19 UTC 2007 > > Source: > > Built by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Built on: Tue Jul 17 09:26:07 UTC 2007 > > Build ID: > 5482989-1a45b2b-518c9cc-a9aa9f8-4c29b36-aef0dbc-200707170926 > > > > The first part refers clearly to the LiveCD release date. > > The second part seems to say that the 2.2 (?) build is indeed > > installed but the Version number is still vc2.1. > > > > Via the web interface: > > 'Show version all' gives a input box and you have to type > 'all' in the > > box to circumvent triggering of an error message. (user input not > > satisfied, or something along those lines). If there are no other > > option to 'sh version all' than 'all' why the input box? > > > > CU > > Egbert Jan > > > > _______________________________________________ Vyatta-users mailing list Vyatta-users@mailman.vyatta.com http://mailman.vyatta.com/mailman/listinfo/vyatta-users
