Hi, >>"Dave" == Dave Restall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Dave> This is essentially the point. As an end user I find the names Dave> confusing. It would help me as an end user if instead of Dave> posters saying :- Dave> "I'm using package XYZ from bilbo(or whatever the codename of Dave> the release is) and problem such-and-such arises" Dave> they would say :- Dave> "I'm using package XYZ from the latest stable release etc.." I see your point. You are correct in the sense that just specifying a codename does not adequately specify which version of a package is being talked about (espescially when one is talking about the development versions, since the version numbers of packages are in a state of flux there). I generally say I am using version XYZ of package MMM. For the most part, when talking about a package, the version number of the package is important. When talking about releases, one uses numbers. Like Debian 1.3.1 rather than whatever it is called now (bo-updates??) Manoj> Yup. Though of course, the general public knows stable, Manoj> unstable, and Debian 1.1.3, for example. You don't *have* to Manoj> know the names. Dave> Exactly, therefore why have names ? Forget I asked that :-), I Dave> can understand the reasons for names and the like, I just have Dave> problems dealing with them and trying to keep track of them, Dave> especially when a name can relate to several different release Dave> numbers. Surely the numbers are more important than the names Dave> and with the packages being dynamic even in 'stable' releases, Dave> then numbers assume even more importance. You are correct. Stable releases should be identified by the numbers. The names are used while the release is under development (we have been burned once by an over-eager CD retailer, we really don't need that kind of PR), and an artifact of mirroring technology that make renaming directories at release a bad idea for the mirrors. Also, it does give us some freedom in version numbers of the distribution (we can slip in a version 1.4 next, or go to 2.0), which of course means little to the end users. Dave> I also run 1.2 something or other which I've built via ftp (Yes Dave> I know it take ages but I got fed up with waiting for the CD Dave> which when it did arrive had 1.1.16 on it instead of 1.2 - but Dave> that's another story), every fortnight or so I run dselect and Dave> download upgraded packages. This means that I have the 'stable' Dave> release but my 'stable' release of is possibly quite different Dave> from somebody elses 'stable' release of 1.2. What I'm aiming at Dave> here is that names are quite meaningless and numbers aren't that Dave> much better, however you can uniquely identify a system using Dave> numbers, you can't using names UNLESS you release a new name for Dave> the release whenever some package in it changes. Quite so. Unfortunately, I think that the codenames offer enough technical benefits to the Debian support organizations that the (IMHO minor) irritation caused to the users is deemed acceptable. I, on behalf of the Debian developers, apologize for the inconvenience caused. manoj -- "The only way for a reporter to look at a politician is down." H.L. Mencken Manoj Srivastava <url:mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mobile, Alabama USA <url:http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/> -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .