A good name for development branch releases package

[Petr Špaček]

If you don't like nginx naming, then what about Linux kernel naming: 
bind-next (similarly linux-next)?

Petr Špaček


On 01. 12. 21 13:07, pemensik at redhat.com (Petr Menšík) wrote:
> Mainline seems strange term to me. I think it should be used also by ISC
> to identify that major version. When I download an archive, it uses
> Development status. Is mainline word ever used in any documentation for
> BIND9? I have never seen that in any article. I would like to use
> something users can recognize, not to learn by trying.
> 
> I know Debian uses -dev suffix for header files, just like we use -devel
> on Fedora. bind-devel package already exists, it cannot be the new
> package name. Development word is a bit overused. bind9-dev might
> confuse user from Debian world, but is short enough and would use ISC
> terminology.
> 
> When reading [1], I think bind9-odd might be also name of the package.
> But that name seems even more confusing. It would kind of discourage its
> use.
> 
> 1. https://kb.isc.org/docs/aa-01540
> 
> On 11/30/21 19:19, Ond?ej Sur? wrote:
>> I quite like the nginx naming - stable and mainline.
>>
>> Ond?ej
>> --
>> Ond?ej Sur? ? ISC (He/Him)
>>
>> My working hours and your working hours may be different. Please do not feel obligated to reply outside your normal working hours.
>>
>>> On 30. 11. 2021, at 16:10, Petr Men??k <pemensik at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> ?Hello BIND users,
>>>
>>> I would like to add a new package of recent BIND9 development release to
>>> Fedora [1] distribution. Current "bind" package contains build of stable
>>> branch 9.16.x release. I think it would be good to keep stable releases
>>> available in Fedora. We still use just bind without 9 suffix.
>>> Theoretically another "bind9" could contain more recent releases. But I
>>> would like to reserve it for current bind package.
>>>
>>> One alternative would be using major version in package name. But I
>>> think one the latest stable release one the latest development releases
>>> would be always enough. bind package should be updated when 9.18.0 is
>>> released. I think development package should follow and upgrade to
>>> 9.19.0 as soon as possible. I would prefer single development package
>>> rolling with major development releases.
>>>
>>> COPR repository of ISC uses "bind9-dev" name. Would you recommend that
>>> name? I kind of like it. Slight disadvantage of this name is similarity
>>> with development headers subpackage, which uses common suffix "-devel"
>>> on Fedora. Development headers are still needed by bind-dyndb-ldap
>>> plugin. It uses bind-devel package now, similar alternative of
>>> development release would be "bind9-dev-devel". It does look like strange.
>>>
>>> Would you help me with a better proposal? What do you think about it? I
>>> don't expect development releases to ever reach Red Hat Enterprise Linux
>>> directly, but it might be build as Extra Packages for Enterprise Linux
>>> with community support.
>>>
>>> I don't want to support installation of both stable and development
>>> packages on single system. It would conflict and only one would have to
>>> be choosen.
>>>
>>> Is there any distribution offering already two releases at the same
>>> time? Would you have some idea, how should it be called? Do you like
>>> "bind9-dev" base name?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Petr
>>>
>>> 1. https://getfedora.org
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Petr Men??k
>>> Software Engineer
>>> Red Hat, http://www.redhat.com/
>>> email: pemensik at redhat.com
>>> PGP: DFCF908DB7C87E8E529925BC4931CA5B6C9FC5CB
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list
>>>
>>> ISC funds the development of this software with paid support subscriptions. Contact us at https://www.isc.org/contact/ for more information.
>>>
>>>
>>> bind-users mailing list
>>> bind-users at lists.isc.org
>>> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users