[arch-releng] ISO branding (WAS: Things beyond 2009.01/02)

[Dieter Plaetinck]

Gerhard Brauer wrote:
> Am Sun, 1 Feb 2009 21:42:02 +0100
> schrieb Dieter Plaetinck <dieter at plaetinck.be>:
>
>   
>> On Sun, 1 Feb 2009 11:43:55 -0800
>> Thayer Williams <thayerw at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>     
>>> On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 8:52 AM, Gerhard Brauer <gerbra at archlinux.de>
>>> wrote:
>>>       
>>>> b) Release "branding"
>>>> Should we have release names? Should we have the release versions
>>>> (ex. 2009.02) in the splash screens (grub, isolinux) and maybe
>>>> in /etc/issue? Background is: User should be able to identify
>>>> which ISO release he currently uses. Having the release version
>>>> only on ISO/Img-File is sometimes not enough.
>>>>         
>>> I'm not crazy about branding the releases, particularly with
>>> codenames and especially in multiple places.  If we brand at all
>>> then I think a single instance of a datestamp, preferably near the
>>> initial setup, would be appropriate.
>>>
>>>       
>> It's cool to have the release name show up at some places of the *iso*
>> (/etc/issue, /etc/rc.sysinit and in the installation program itself
>> for example)
>> I don't think it should show up at all in the installed system.  I
>> don't see the use:  rolling releases, keeping things simple et al.
>>     
>
> You're right, i don't mean to get these release numbers/names into the
> installed system - only a way to identify the ISO what the user
> currently is using.
> So Thayer's idea having the current iso version/name as a text file is
> good IMHO. Placing it in the iso9660 structure (where the sqfs files
> live) and in the booted LiveCD /setup directory is IMHO enough to
> identify the ISO release - either if the medium is only mounted or
> booted.
>
>   
Some random thoughts:
if you do `uname -r` you know the kernel release. eg 2.6.28-ARCH: not 
the arch release version/name, but close.
Maybe we could version our releases like the kernel. eg 2.6.28 instead 
of 2009.01
that what we can show the "release version" at many places (inside 
installer, in /etc/rc.sysinit etc) in a bit easier way.
also, it wouldn't cause so much stress when we change months, eg no 
stress about us being late, the need to change version numbers etc (eg 
right now we have 2009.01-beta and alpha, but the release is 2009.02, we 
need to update all references such as versions in flyspray, etc)
Dieter