[arch-releng] 2009.02 name ideas
dieter at plaetinck.be
Thu Feb 5 14:17:09 EST 2009
On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 11:29:58 -0600
Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 10:24 AM, Dieter Plaetinck
> <dieter at plaetinck.be> wrote:
> > On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 15:07:43 +0100
> > Gerhard Brauer <gerbra at archlinux.de> wrote:
> >> Am Thu, 5 Feb 2009 13:10:56 +0100
> >> schrieb Dieter Plaetinck <dieter at plaetinck.be>:
> >> > On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 17:37:49 -0600
> >> > Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin at 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
> 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.
Okay. makes sense. technical excellence and
simplicity above all.
As for the "how to know which iso release you're running after booting
the cd" problem: you can always just check the kernel version.
More information about the arch-releng