Noah L. Meyerhans wrote: > And just what was it that made those releases minor? There was no logic > behind it, it was totally arbitrary. I'd be willing to bet that over > 90% of the packages in Debian were changed between any one of those > minor releases. Plus you must consider all of the new packages > available. The same holds true for a major release like woody. There was a clear distinction between minor and major releases. Major releases made changes that impacted every peice of software on the system; minor releases did not. 1.1 was a major release due to ELF (NB: would have been 1.0) 1.2 was not as the distribution only grew and changed 1.3 likewise 2.0 was a major release due to glibc 2.1 was not as the distribution only grew and changed 2.2 likewise 3.0 was a major release due to an arbitrary decision of the release manager, but that's the first time that happened. I hope you're not trying to perpetuate that. It doesn't really matter what percentage of the packages changed in minor releases, the distinction is that in a major release, all (or all compiled anyway) packages *had* to be changed, in one specific and significant way that involved a significant transitoon plan. Using a major release number was also historically a good way to give notice to our users that the upgrade would be especially involved. -- see shy jo  Though I suspect we have not hit 90% modificaton for at least half of all our releases.
Description: PGP signature