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

_______________________________________________
Koha-devel mailing list
Koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org
http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel
website : http://www.koha-community.org/
git : http://git.koha-community.org/
bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/