Re: Naming of new 2.0 release
Lars Wirzenius <liw@iki.fi> wrote:
> For what it's worth, I as a customer strongly disagree with the fact
> that I don't know what release a Debian CD has. If 2.0r1 has important
> security fixes (and it probably does), and I buy a 2.0 CD from a vendor,
> I _really_ don't want to have to compare the CD to what is on ftp.funet.fi
> to see if I need to update things further.
I think you really have a point here.
What of the things I liked about the numbering scheme used in Debian
versions prior to Bo was that there was a stable-updates directory
that contained all the updated packages. In that directory there was a
changelog file that contained the packages that changed in that
release. For example:
1.2.11 (Jul. 1, 1997)
- samba 1.9.17p12-2
* Upstream security fix
- netbase 1.5-5
* Fixed buffer overflow in telnet
1.2.10 (Jun. 30, 1997)
- apache 1.2-1
[...]
You see? It was very easy to know why a certain package was updated.
After the new numbering scheme that started with Bo, I never saw again
something like this. I guess it is not the r2, r3, rx thing that I did
not like. I guess it was that it was not easy to know what the version
number in my CD is, and what has changed from the first release.
peloy.-
--
Eloy A. Paris
Information Technology Department
Rockwell Automation Venezuela
Telephone: +58-2-9432311 Fax: +58-2-9431645
Reply to: