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

Re: Debian versioning scheme (r1 vs .1)

Richard Braakman wrote:
> ?? -> 1.1   (there was no 1.0)
>   AFAIK this was the a.out -> ELF transition.  Also, of course, moving
>   from 0.x to 1.x means "there are no major parts missing".
> 1.3.1 -> 2.0  (bo -> hamm)
>   libc5 -> libc6 transition
> 2.2 -> 3.0  (potato -> woody)
>   Introduction of "testing" distribution

And remember that there was some dissention about using 3.0 for woody,
partly because there was no such major upgrade in it. Aside from woody,
we've had very good reasons for incrementing the major versions, I guess
only time will tell if breaking that precedent as we did for woody will
make the whole versioning scheme "completely arbitrary" or not.

Of course, this whole discussion may be somewhat moot if nobody ever
figures out how to go about the gcc 3.0 transition (which may warrent a
major version bump if we ever do it).

see shy jo

Attachment: pgp6b76rt8OV7.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: