On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 10:15:27PM -0700, Philippe Troin wrote: > "Roberto C. Sanchez" <roberto@familiasanchez.net> 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. I think that none of these things warrant a major version bump, and the Debian major version number should be increased with releases of fspanel. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature