Re: CMSP 23. Have a "development version" flag

2009-10-13 Thread Damyan Ivanov
-=| Graham Barr, Fri, Oct 09, 2009 at 09:20:37AM -0500 |=- > > On Oct 9, 2009, at 8:17 AM, Ricardo Signes wrote: > > >* David Golden [2009-10-09T07:52:45] > >>23. Have a "development version" flag > > > >Agreed. > > > >>* Con: Development version'ness would not be determinable post- > >>installa

Re: CMSP 23. Have a "development version" flag

2009-10-09 Thread David Golden
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 10:41 AM, Steffen Mueller wrote: > David Golden wrote: >> >> 23. Have a "development version" flag > >> * Con: Development version'ness would not be determinable >> post-installation >>  AdamKennedy > > Correction to my earlier reply: If we have the META info available *easi

Re: CMSP 23. Have a "development version" flag

2009-10-09 Thread David E. Wheeler
On Oct 9, 2009, at 7:20 AM, Graham Barr wrote: Packlist 2.0? Agreed. The main use of development status seems to be control if the distribution is indexed as the latest released etc. So having a flag instead of the hackish way we use _ seems a benefit. +1 David

Re: CMSP 23. Have a "development version" flag

2009-10-09 Thread Steffen Mueller
David Golden wrote: 23. Have a "development version" flag * Con: Development version'ness would not be determinable post-installation AdamKennedy Correction to my earlier reply: If we have the META info available *easily* post installation (cf. 33), my vote becomes a +1. Steffen

Re: CMSP 23. Have a "development version" flag

2009-10-09 Thread Steffen Mueller
David Golden wrote: 23. Have a "development version" flag * Con: Development version'ness would not be determinable post-installation AdamKennedy -1 for this reason. Reinventing packlists and EU::Install* while retaining backward compatibility seems like a big can of worms that may grind

Re: CMSP 23. Have a "development version" flag

2009-10-09 Thread Graham Barr
On Oct 9, 2009, at 8:17 AM, Ricardo Signes wrote: * David Golden [2009-10-09T07:52:45] 23. Have a "development version" flag Agreed. * Con: Development version'ness would not be determinable post- installation AdamKennedy Packlist 2.0? Agreed. The main use of development status see

Re: CMSP 23. Have a "development version" flag

2009-10-09 Thread Ricardo Signes
* David Golden [2009-10-09T07:52:45] > 23. Have a "development version" flag Agreed. > * Con: Development version'ness would not be determinable post-installation > AdamKennedy Packlist 2.0? -- rjbs

CMSP 23. Have a "development version" flag

2009-10-09 Thread David Golden
23. Have a "development version" flag Proposal: Add a boolean value indicating whether the release is a "production" or "alpha/developer/beta/whatever" release. [[User:elliot|Elliot Shank]] Comments: * Pro: We'd have an unambiguous way of specifying that something is or is not "production rea