[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Compiling problem



2009/4/10 David <dgboles comcast net>:
> On 4/10/2009 10:33 AM, Sharpe, Sam J wrote:
>> 2009/4/10 Kevin Kofler <kevin kofler chello at>:
>>> Jim wrote:
>>>> FC 8
>>> It's called Fedora 8, not "FC 8". And it's no longer supported.
>
>> This bit of pedantry would be more impressive if this weren't the case:
>
>> $ rpm -qa --queryformat '%{RELEASE}\n' | cut -d. -f2 | grep fc | sort | uniq -c
>>    1110 fc10
>>       1 fc7
>>       5 fc8
>>     217 fc9
>
>> Once that's all sorted and every package is tagged fNN instead of
>> fcNN, maybe we can revisit this issue.
>
>
> Did you miss that class? Or sleep through maybe?  8-)
>
> This was all explained back when it was done. Any why it was done this way.

No, I remember reading the discussion and I'm not disputing the
reasons behind it. I'm just mentioning that it's pointless being
pedantic about people calling it FCn until all references to FC are
removed from the packages.

I quite often refer to our "Eff-See-Ten" packages. If that was written
"FC 10" then I'd arguably be wrong because it's not Fedora *Core* any
more. If I'd written it as fc10, then I'd probably have a defence as
I'd be referring to packages with a release that contains the string
fc10.

It's all arbitrary names, everyone knows that FC8 is a synonym for F8,
so there's no real point pulling people up on it.

Now the fact Fedora 8 is EOL - that was a valid point...

-- 
Sam


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]