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

Re: Compiling problem

On 4/10/2009 11:24 AM, Sharpe, Sam J wrote:
> 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...

True. So very true.   ;-)


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