On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 10:24 AM, Dieter Plaetinck <dieter@plaetinck.be> wrote:
On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 15:07:43 +0100 Gerhard Brauer <gerbra@archlinux.de> wrote:
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.
We can always just stick to the default colors (eg no fancy control characters)
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
hey what about (only on the livecd) putting a file /arch/release containing the version number, and then in /etc/rc.sysinit we can do cat /arch/release 2>/dev/null. so that will work on every release and won't be harmful on normal systems that don't have /arch/release.
In the same way we could in aif look if /arch/release exists and if so, display it in the header or whatever.
We could also do the same for codenames (a la 'overlord', "don't panic" etc): check if the file exists and if not don't do anything with it. this way we can use the same packages for the livecd and installed systems.
I guess my biggest qualm here is that it's kinda difficult to pepper the release version around every place. This seems like a fairly clean solution, but it we get into the habit of adding it to /etc/issue and things like that, it could get annoying (I envision bug reports about us missing a file or two, and needing to rebuild ISOs for something so minor) If we add a file (I like /etc/arch-release better, FYI) we could incorporate it into the initscripts somehow... and maybe into the installer itself.