Am Thu, 5 Feb 2009 13:10:56 +0100 schrieb Dieter Plaetinck <dieter@plaetinck.be>:
On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 17:37:49 -0600 Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
What are your arguments against putting codenames "on" the iso's? hard to implement cleanly/maintain ?
IMHO yes. We have had this on the December 2008 ISOs (and there only on the isolinux splash msg-files). Text in this messages files are (for color things) escaped by control code, so editing in some editors could completely break them. On grub we have never used (iso) version numbers or codenames. On /etc/issue (in the LiveCD) AFAIK we used it last on Overlord (and the FrosCon). So we have to automate this to put the correct versions/codenames in several files. And this is something which would get forgotten often IMHO - so all laugh at us when in 2019 the ISOs tell: I'm 2009.04... I'm now (after thinking and reading the mails) against any "branding" the ISOs/Images. **Only** in /arch directory and in the iso9660 structure (where the sqfs files live) i like to see a release version scheme like 2009.02-1 - only to identify the ISO (if one have a problem to install so we could ask in forums etc: Do you use the latest ISO? Uh, how can i check this? Look at: cat /arch/release or mount the ISO and do a: cat /media/cd/release. I agree with Aaron that we demonstrate the Arch "rolling release" better when we don't use any things that offers somewhat: Hey, they have releases... So: -1 for versions/codenames in any splash or message file +1 for putting the release month/revision in above mentioned text files (if we automate this).
Dieter
Gerhard