Galen Charlton schreef op di 15-04-2014 om 10:15 [-0700]:
I'd like to tack on a semi-related (or possibly not at all related) question. Should we consider adopting a different set of code names/suites for our APT repository? For example:
My answer here is "yes, but..."
testing stable oldstable (maybe) reallyoldstable
We probably need to deprecate the squeeze* names, however they do serve a potential purpose. That is, if we need to build a different version for different OSes, then we can. However, I don't think this is likely, and we'd be better off actively avoiding that being a thing we need to do. Given this, I'd lean towards the names you list above. I think I can actually make this happen just by setting up some symlinks in the repo.
or perhaps go by version number (modified as needed to confirm with any toolchain expectations about the format of the suite name)?
3.16.x 3.14.x etc.
I've thought about this, and I don't like it. The main reason is that if people just want to regularly update to be either more bleeding edge or a bit more conservative, they can track squeeze or oldstable respectively. If the distribution names are version numbers, then there's no seamless upgrade path when a version is retired. -- Robin Sheat Catalyst IT Ltd. ✆ +64 4 803 2204 GPG: 5FA7 4B49 1E4D CAA4 4C38 8505 77F5 B724 F871 3BDF