To be clear, I absolutely approve of Rich's change for 7626. It's not
my intention to
make his life miserable. :-)
Stephen Hahn wrote:
When we start delivering FCS versions, we expect them to be numbered
something sensible like 12.1, 13.0, etc. But the express releases are
named using the release dates. AFAIK, since they will be in different
packages ("sunstudio" vs "sunstudioexpress", and installed into different
directories ("/opt/SunStudioExpress" vs "/opt/SunStudio"), it shouldn't
be a
problem to have different numbering schemes.
This scheme sounds reasonable to me. Once we settle on Rich's renames
on a larger scale, we can probably set these to their real values.
- Stephen
The official names of our express releases are variously:
Sun Studio Express - March 2009 Build
Sun Studio Express 3/09
Express-March 2009
March 2009 Express
And those are from just the download page. :-)
If you want to claim we're not being consistent, I certainly can't argue
with that.
But using the date as the official name (and version) of the release is
very well established
by now. This isn't just an issue of what number to assign to the
package. Marketing
has officially chosen to name the release after the release date.
I claim that renaming the package to match reality is the only sensible
response.
The cost of getting this wrong is that you have to think up a new name for
your package, right? Like "sunstudioexpress-2008.11" ->
"sun-studio-express-13.0"
and people can't simply "upgrade" from one to the other, they have to
uninstall the old one and reinstall the new one. That's the risk we
take if we
choose wrong.
So that's my take on it. Why is this related to renaming the OS packages?
Since the sunstudioexpress package is unbundled?
If they are related, I'm okay with deferring. I just don't see yet how the
issues are related.
--chris
_______________________________________________
pkg-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
