Re: should etch be Debian 4.0 ?
On 7/12/05, Andrea Mennucc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote: > > On 20050708T181259-0400, Johan Kullstam wrote: > >>What signal is meant by 3.1 versus 4.0? Does your intended audience > >>have any concept of the distinction? > > > > The usual distinction, when it is made, is that bumping the major number > > indicates a disruptive upgrade (changing how things work, not just > > adding new things). > > > > the change of gcc 3 to gcc 3 is disruptive (to c++ binaries) 4? But not to users, which is what the version number is about.
Re: should etch be Debian 4.0 ?
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote: > On 20050708T181259-0400, Johan Kullstam wrote: >>What signal is meant by 3.1 versus 4.0? Does your intended audience >>have any concept of the distinction? > > The usual distinction, when it is made, is that bumping the major number > indicates a disruptive upgrade (changing how things work, not just > adding new things). > the change of gcc 3 to gcc 3 is disruptive (to c++ binaries) a. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: should etch be Debian 4.0 ?
I approve Drew Parsons wrote: > I remember some of us belatedly suggested sarge should be Debian 4.0, > though it was too late (May?) to accept that. (it was me) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: should etch be Debian 4.0 ?
Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote: There are some strange people in the world who consider toy names frivolous and not grown up. But they can be mollified with sober, professional release numbers. Another advantage is that numbers come in an order and thereby indicate which release came before which. Among numbers, integers describe this order most clearly. :) -- Thomas Hood -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: should etch be Debian 4.0 ?
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005, Thomas Hood wrote: Are release numbers really needed? Why not do away with them altogether? There are some strange people in the world who consider toy names frivolous and not grown up. But they can be mollified with sober, professional release numbers. -- Jaldhar H. Vyas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> La Salle Debain - http://www.braincells.com/debian/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: should etch be Debian 4.0 ?
Nigel Jones wrote: On 10/07/05, Thomas Hood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Are release numbers really needed? Why not do away with them altogether? you mean, just stick with code names? That wouldn't exactly work, Debian's apt/dpkg basicly relies on release numbers, how else can it easily and quickly realize that apache2-2.0.40 is older than apache2-2.0.50? I was obviously referring to the numbers assigned to releases of the operating system, not to releases of individual packages. -- Thomas Hood -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: should etch be Debian 4.0 ?
Nigel Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 10/07/05, Thomas Hood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 01:57:54 -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: >> > I suggested "Debian IV" >> >> Are release numbers really needed? Why not do away with them altogether? >> > you mean, just stick with code names? > > That wouldn't exactly work, Debian's apt/dpkg basicly relies on > release numbers, how else can it easily and quickly realize that > apache2-2.0.40 is older than apache2-2.0.50? The question here is about version of debian released, not version of package in debian. But the true question is : Does this discussion really needed? Why not do away with it altogether? -- Rémi Vanicat -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: should etch be Debian 4.0 ?
On 10/07/05, Thomas Hood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 01:57:54 -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > > I suggested "Debian IV" > > Are release numbers really needed? Why not do away with them altogether? > > -- > Thomas Hood > you mean, just stick with code names? That wouldn't exactly work, Debian's apt/dpkg basicly relies on release numbers, how else can it easily and quickly realize that apache2-2.0.40 is older than apache2-2.0.50? if you tried to do release names, you'd have some seriously bored maintainers jumping the boat to Y-Distribution because they don't have to think! Also we'd have package lists about 15MB (compressed) in size, because it'd have to name every release name, for every program, because thats how it's going to work them out... Stick with numbers, it gives us something to argue about after each release. > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- N Jones Blogging @ http://nigelj.blogspot.com Proud Debian & FOSS User Debian Maintainer of: html2ps & ipkungfu
Re: should etch be Debian 4.0 ?
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 01:57:54 -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > I suggested "Debian IV" Are release numbers really needed? Why not do away with them altogether? -- Thomas Hood -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: should etch be Debian 4.0 ?
I suggested "Debian IV", to *really* get rid of minor version numbers, permanently. Initial release would be Debian IV r0. Point releases would be Debian IV r1, etc. Next release, Debian V, etc. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: should etch be Debian 4.0 ?
On 20050708T181259-0400, Johan Kullstam wrote: > I've never understood the .X distinction anyway. > > What signal is meant by 3.1 versus 4.0? Does your intended audience > have any concept of the distinction? The usual distinction, when it is made, is that bumping the major number indicates a disruptive upgrade (changing how things work, not just adding new things). I suppose I should advertise my version number rant here: http://antti-juhani.kaijanaho.info/blog/en/programming/version-numbering.html -- Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, Debian developer http://kaijanaho.info/antti-juhani/blog/en/debian signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: should etch be Debian 4.0 ?
On Sat, 9 Jul 2005, Nigel Jones wrote: > On 08/07/05, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 11:57:25AM +1000, Drew Parsons wrote: > > > I'm already seeing documentation referring to "Debian 3.2 (etch)". > > > > Where is this? It's certainly wrong for documentation to make assumptions > > about the release version number at this point, and is the kind of thing > > that makes it harder to change later. > > > > And after all, isn't the point of codenames to avoid third-parties > > incorrectly attaching a version number to a not-yet-released version? > > http://ru.wikibooks.org/wiki/LOR-FAQ-Debian seems to be saying Etch is 3.2 > Also http://www.computerbase.de/lexikon/Debian seems to be saying the same. > (Got these from a google search of "etch 3.2 debian" (page 8 onwards)). Those references should be changed, then. It's *not* ok to refer to etch as Debian 3.2, as the version number for etch has not been decided yet. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: should etch be Debian 4.0 ?
On 08/07/05, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 11:57:25AM +1000, Drew Parsons wrote: > > I'm already seeing documentation referring to "Debian 3.2 (etch)". > > Where is this? It's certainly wrong for documentation to make assumptions > about the release version number at this point, and is the kind of thing > that makes it harder to change later. > > And after all, isn't the point of codenames to avoid third-parties > incorrectly attaching a version number to a not-yet-released version? > http://ru.wikibooks.org/wiki/LOR-FAQ-Debian seems to be saying Etch is 3.2 Also http://www.computerbase.de/lexikon/Debian seems to be saying the same. (Got these from a google search of "etch 3.2 debian" (page 8 onwards)). I suppose if etch does result in been 4.0 the media is going to say that the project didn't keep to it's word?
Re: should etch be Debian 4.0 ?
Drew Parsons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'm already seeing documentation referring to "Debian 3.2 (etch)". Is > this really what we want? > > I remember some of us belatedly suggested sarge should be Debian 4.0, > though it was too late (May?) to accept that. > > I suppose we should decide now if etch is going to be 3.2 or 4.0. > > Given the ABI change with gcc-4.0 and the introduction of X.org, it > seems to me we have ample justification to introduce Debian 4.0. I've never understood the .X distinction anyway. What signal is meant by 3.1 versus 4.0? Does your intended audience have any concept of the distinction? Why is sarge 3.1 and not 4.0? No good reason that makes any sense to me. It's a distinction completely without value since its too subtle for non-intimates to grasp and if you are very into debian, you'd know what the difference between versions is anyway. Just call them release N.0. Update rollups (like 3.0r5, 3.0r6 and presumably future 3.1r1 &c) could use the second digit. -- Johan KULLSTAM -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: should etch be Debian 4.0 ?
On Fri 07/08/05 09:19, Bryan Gruneberg wrote: > jokes ;-) > > Bryan I think they should be versioned by the first number said by the character their named after... so buzz should have been 4 -- -- | Josh Lauricha| Ford, you're turning| | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | into a penguin. Stop| | Bioinformatics, UCR | it | || | OpenPG:| | 4E7D 0FC0 DB6C E91D 4D7B C7F3 9BE9 8740 E4DC 6184 | || | Geek Code: Version 3.12| | GAT/CS$/IT$ d+ s-: a-->--- C$ UL$ P++ L| | $E--- W+ N o? K? w--(---) O? M+(++) V? PS++ PE-(--)| | Y+ PGP+++ t--- 5+++ X+ R tv DI++ D--- G++ | | e++ h- r++ z? | || -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: should etch be Debian 4.0 ?
Philippe Troin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > "Roberto C. Sanchez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 11:57:25AM +1000, Drew Parsons wrote: >> > I'm already seeing documentation referring to "Debian 3.2 (etch)". Is >> > this really what we want? >> > >> > I remember some of us belatedly suggested sarge should be Debian 4.0, >> > though it was too late (May?) to accept that. >> > >> > I suppose we should decide now if etch is going to be 3.2 or 4.0. >> > >> > Given the ABI change with gcc-4.0 and the introduction of X.org, it >> > seems to me we have ample justification to introduce Debian 4.0. >> > >> >> I second the motion. I realize that the goal of Debian is not to >> appease the unwashed masses. However, it seems logical (and warranted) >> to bump the major version number to indicate the dramatic differences >> between Sarge and (the to be released) Etch. > > I think multiarch would warrant a major version bump. Gcc 4 and X.org > would not IMHO. > > Phil. And we all aim for multiarch fo etch, right. :) MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: should etch be Debian 4.0 ?
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 04:16:01PM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote: > If Debian simply _must_ have decimal points in its release numbers then > I'd suggest replacing the 'r' in update version numbers with '.'. Thus > 9.1 would be the number of the first etch update. As I remember, the original reason for using 'r' in update version numbers was that (in contrast to '.') it didn't make CD vendors think they had to throw out and re-press all their existing stock of Debian CDs every time a point release was issued. I think that rationale is still at least somewhat valid. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: should etch be Debian 4.0 ?
Drew Parsons wrote: > It was the latest README in the new gcc-defaults. I imagine they > weren't trying to be presumptuous but were just using it as a place > holder. The document itself says it's not fully updated yet. One way or > another, it'll have to be changed to something. Maybe they'll get it > right by chance :) The correct term to use to refer to etch in a file like this is "etch". -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: should etch be Debian 4.0 ?
Steve the deconstructionist wrote: > > I'm already seeing documentation referring to "Debian 3.2 (etch)". > > Where is this? It's certainly wrong for documentation to make assumptions > about the release version number at this point, and is the kind of thing > that makes it harder to change later. > It was the latest README in the new gcc-defaults. I imagine they weren't trying to be presumptuous but were just using it as a place holder. The document itself says it's not fully updated yet. One way or another, it'll have to be changed to something. Maybe they'll get it right by chance :) > > And after all, isn't the point of codenames to avoid third-parties > incorrectly attaching a version number to a not-yet-released version? > True, but where the number exists, its reasonable to want to use it. Maybe they should have written "Debian x.y (etch)"? > > > Is this really what we want? > > Not particularly. Frankly, I think we should do away with the minor version > numbering altogether for Debian releases, reserving that for our point > releases; I think the endless discussions about what is or isn't an > important enough change within the code to warrant bumping the major version > are really quite beside the point. Sounds sensible to me. The only trouble I have with this scheme is how it will look once we get to "Debian 17" :) > Personally, I think sarge ought to have been labelled a 4.0 release, but > IIRC the version number decision was made before my time. :) > I tend to agree (and Adam pointed out the ABI in sarge was changed, but that's precisely mine, if not your, point). At the end of the day, I don't personally care either way. It's just a number. I just want us to be as communally happy about it as we can be, without thinking at the last minute "oh, we should have called it that!" And I don't want us feeling we have to be as dour, pessimistic or disenfranchised about the process as Peter was in his reply. I thought some healthy debate about it early on might be useful. Drew -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: should etch be Debian 4.0 ?
If Debian continues to use the Release When Ready strategy then I would suggest that the number of the next release be its ordinal in the historical sequence of releases, which is 9 by my reckoning (buzz, rex, bo, hamm, slink, potato, woody, sarge, etch). I see no basis for distinguishing some Debian releases as "minor" ones. Every release is major. If Debian simply _must_ have decimal points in its release numbers then I'd suggest replacing the 'r' in update version numbers with '.'. Thus 9.1 would be the number of the first etch update. -- Thomas Hood -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: should etch be Debian 4.0 ?
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 10:15:27PM -0700, Philippe Troin wrote: > "Roberto C. Sanchez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 11:57:25AM +1000, Drew Parsons wrote: > > > I'm already seeing documentation referring to "Debian 3.2 (etch)". Is > > > this really what we want? > > > > > > I remember some of us belatedly suggested sarge should be Debian 4.0, > > > though it was too late (May?) to accept that. > > > > > > I suppose we should decide now if etch is going to be 3.2 or 4.0. > > > > > > Given the ABI change with gcc-4.0 and the introduction of X.org, it > > > seems to me we have ample justification to introduce Debian 4.0. > > > > > > > I second the motion. I realize that the goal of Debian is not to > > appease the unwashed masses. However, it seems logical (and warranted) > > to bump the major version number to indicate the dramatic differences > > between Sarge and (the to be released) Etch. > > I think multiarch would warrant a major version bump. Gcc 4 and X.org > would not IMHO. I think that none of these things warrant a major version bump, and the Debian major version number should be increased with releases of fspanel. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: should etch be Debian 4.0 ?
On Fri, 2005-07-08 at 09:19 +0200, Bryan Gruneberg wrote: > Debian 2006 ( it can be released in 2008 though) Debian 2006.0 :P -- David Moreno Garza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | http://www.damog.net/ If you want to make God laugh, tell him your future plans. GPG: C671257D - 6EF6 C284 C95D 78F6 0B78 FFD3 981C 5FD7 C671 257D -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: should etch be Debian 4.0 ?
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 11:57:25AM +1000, Drew Parsons wrote: > I'm already seeing documentation referring to "Debian 3.2 (etch)". Where is this? It's certainly wrong for documentation to make assumptions about the release version number at this point, and is the kind of thing that makes it harder to change later. And after all, isn't the point of codenames to avoid third-parties incorrectly attaching a version number to a not-yet-released version? > Is this really what we want? Not particularly. Frankly, I think we should do away with the minor version numbering altogether for Debian releases, reserving that for our point releases; I think the endless discussions about what is or isn't an important enough change within the code to warrant bumping the major version are really quite beside the point. Personally, I think sarge ought to have been labelled a 4.0 release, but IIRC the version number decision was made before my time. :) -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: should etch be Debian 4.0 ?
[Drew Parsons] > I remember some of us belatedly suggested sarge should be Debian 4.0, > though it was too late (May?) to accept that. > > I suppose we should decide now if etch is going to be 3.2 or 4.0. First of all, it was not only too late, the talk would have been pointless anyway, like it is now. It's a small and arbitrary decision the release managers get to make - and they're in a position to know in great detail just how major or minor a release is. I'm sure if they care about the opinions of the peanut gallery, they'll ask. In their shoes, *I* wouldn't care what J. Random Developer thought. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: should etch be Debian 4.0 ?
Why not skip 4 all together and go straight to ... Debian 2006 ( it can be released in 2008 though) jokes ;-) Bryan On Friday 08 July 2005 09:15, René van Bevern wrote: > On 8.07.05, Drew Parsons wrote: > > I'm already seeing documentation referring to "Debian 3.2 (etch)". Is > > this really what we want? > > It should be 3.14, followed by a 3.141 release. ;) > > René -- HBG Technologies Bryan Gruneberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0861000 HBG --- http://WWW.HBGTECH.COM/
Re: should etch be Debian 4.0 ?
Drew Parsons wrote: >I suppose we should decide now if etch is going to be 3.2 or 4.0. > >Given the ABI change with gcc-4.0 and the introduction of X.org, it >seems to me we have ample justification to introduce Debian 4.0. > > We had an ABI change with Sarge as well. Also, there is not that much difference between X.org and XFree86. Well, less than with 3.x and 4.x branches of X. I'd we we should not start going the way Red Hat or Suse went with version numbers and should follow more closely what Mac OS is now doing. Their releases are 10.0, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, etc... Anyway, as someone already said, going multiarch would warrant Debian 4.0. Some applications being udpated does not warrant that, IMHO. - Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: should etch be Debian 4.0 ?
On 8.07.05, Drew Parsons wrote: > I'm already seeing documentation referring to "Debian 3.2 (etch)". Is > this really what we want? It should be 3.14, followed by a 3.141 release. ;) René pgprBybtBBJri.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: should etch be Debian 4.0 ?
"Roberto C. Sanchez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 11:57:25AM +1000, Drew Parsons wrote: > > I'm already seeing documentation referring to "Debian 3.2 (etch)". Is > > this really what we want? > > > > I remember some of us belatedly suggested sarge should be Debian 4.0, > > though it was too late (May?) to accept that. > > > > I suppose we should decide now if etch is going to be 3.2 or 4.0. > > > > Given the ABI change with gcc-4.0 and the introduction of X.org, it > > seems to me we have ample justification to introduce Debian 4.0. > > > > I second the motion. I realize that the goal of Debian is not to > appease the unwashed masses. However, it seems logical (and warranted) > to bump the major version number to indicate the dramatic differences > between Sarge and (the to be released) Etch. I think multiarch would warrant a major version bump. Gcc 4 and X.org would not IMHO. Phil. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: should etch be Debian 4.0 ?
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 11:57:25AM +1000, Drew Parsons wrote: > I'm already seeing documentation referring to "Debian 3.2 (etch)". Is > this really what we want? > > I remember some of us belatedly suggested sarge should be Debian 4.0, > though it was too late (May?) to accept that. > > I suppose we should decide now if etch is going to be 3.2 or 4.0. > > Given the ABI change with gcc-4.0 and the introduction of X.org, it > seems to me we have ample justification to introduce Debian 4.0. > I second the motion. I realize that the goal of Debian is not to appease the unwashed masses. However, it seems logical (and warranted) to bump the major version number to indicate the dramatic differences between Sarge and (the to be released) Etch. -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://familiasanchez.net/~sanchezr pgpCfnl0moASN.pgp Description: PGP signature
should etch be Debian 4.0 ?
I'm already seeing documentation referring to "Debian 3.2 (etch)". Is this really what we want? I remember some of us belatedly suggested sarge should be Debian 4.0, though it was too late (May?) to accept that. I suppose we should decide now if etch is going to be 3.2 or 4.0. Given the ABI change with gcc-4.0 and the introduction of X.org, it seems to me we have ample justification to introduce Debian 4.0. Drew -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
