@liw The thing about the release naming; I don't understand how naming avoids the problem?
Top-level
6 comments
@cjwatson @penguin42 I don't remember all the details, and I couldn't find links to discussions back then, but my memory claims that the idea was that code names are less likely to be misunderstood as finished releases. The later development of the archive pool structure and `dists` directory handle this betterer. @penguin42 @liw I've been a Debian developer for 22 years and I still have to look up the numbers when I need them. @cjwatson @penguin42 @liw on the flip side I can give you the numbers but I usually have no idea how to order buster, bullseye and bookworm. @penguin42 @liw A nick name is not a fixed release. It was mainly to avoid pre-mature CDs and such ... You would be having a hard time selling "Debian Buzz", or at least that made it clear to the user that it wasn't Debian 1.1 or whatever. |
@penguin42 @liw I think the missing piece here is that Debian does assign versions, but they only appear as such in the archive once the release is actually official as opposed to being in preparation.