latest/current symlinks

Dmitrijs Ledkovs dmitrij.ledkov at
Wed Mar 20 11:02:45 UTC 2013

On 20 March 2013 10:53, Gediminas Paulauskas <menesis at> wrote:
> 2013/3/20 Colin Watson <cjwatson at>:
>> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 07:27:05AM +0001, Zygmunt Krynicki wrote:
>>> W dniu śro, mar 20, 2013 o 2:41 ,nadawca Colin Watson
>>> <cjwatson at> napisał:
>>> >I've added "latest" symlinks alongside the existing "current" on
>>> > (e.g.
>>> > The
>>> >intent of this is that "latest" will continue always pointing to
>>> >the very latest build, while "current" will point to the latest
>>> >build that has passed automatic smoke-tests. The latter is not yet
>>> >implemented, so "current" is always the same as "latest" right
>>> >now, but I hope to get this working soon.
>>> While I love the idea I cannot think of more confusing words. Could
>>> we perhaps reconsider this to be something that does not require a
>>> README file around?
>> Hm, this came out of UDS ...
>>> If backwards compatibility is not important (the name 'current' can
>>> be discarded) then I would propose using "lastes-tested" and
>>> "latest-untested"
>> Backwards compatibility is essential and I will not rename "current".
>> But I suppose I could rename "latest" to "latest-untested".  Anyone
>> else?
> When I read that the outcome of the rolling release discussion is a
> symlink pointing to the release in development, I had no doubt that it
> will be called "unstable", because that's how Debian calls the same
> thing.

This is about ISOs and other installation media on,
not about the archive / release names.
Regardless we will not use "unstable" or any other debian names, as
that has a high potential of clash as both ubuntu & debian
repositories are very alike, and the archive names is what essentially
separates the two apart.



More information about the ubuntu-devel mailing list