Re: should etch be Debian 4.0 ?
Philippe Troin <email@example.com> writes:
> "Roberto C. Sanchez" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 11:57:25AM +1000, Drew Parsons wrote:
>> > I'm already seeing documentation referring to "Debian 3.2 (etch)". Is
>> > this really what we want?
>> > I remember some of us belatedly suggested sarge should be Debian 4.0,
>> > though it was too late (May?) to accept that.
>> > I suppose we should decide now if etch is going to be 3.2 or 4.0.
>> > Given the ABI change with gcc-4.0 and the introduction of X.org, it
>> > seems to me we have ample justification to introduce Debian 4.0.
>> I second the motion. I realize that the goal of Debian is not to
>> appease the unwashed masses. However, it seems logical (and warranted)
>> to bump the major version number to indicate the dramatic differences
>> between Sarge and (the to be released) Etch.
> I think multiarch would warrant a major version bump. Gcc 4 and X.org
> would not IMHO.
And we all aim for multiarch fo etch, right. :)