Re: Naming of new 2.0 release
Lars Wirzenius <email@example.com> 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.
Eloy A. Paris
Information Technology Department
Rockwell Automation Venezuela
Telephone: +58-2-9432311 Fax: +58-2-9431645