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 their meaning when a new release > > happens. > > I use these (testing, etc) so getting rid of them would be annoying.
The "stable" suite names are more annoying than unstable/testing/experimental as they require updates to suites at release time that are not related to the release. That shouldn't be necessary. For "testing", "unstable" one could probably introduce some `Alias` field in Release, but I also like minimalist solutions (which already seem to work well for Ubuntu). > > 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 Yes, but it gives warnings for issues that I believe should be an error instead. (And currently a good reason for TLS to talk to mirros so a MitM that is not a mirror operator cannot give you oldstable when you want to use unstable.) debootstrap gives an error for this: +--- | $ /sbin/debootstrap --print-debs Debian9.9 . http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian unstable | [...] | E: Asked to install suite Debian9.9, but got stable (codename: stretch) from mirror +--- As Adam already pointed out having the point release in there also makes "Debian9.9" rather unhelpful. > > Ubuntu already has no suite names, only codenames, but having to map > > "Ubuntu 18.04" to "bionic" instead of just writing the version in > > sources.list is annoying (I always have to look up the codename to be > > sure as I don't use Ubuntu that much). > > They do have the 'devel' suite, but it is not a proper one: > > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1821272 That is what Debian9.9 (and similar) are currently as well. Ansgar