Debian Version Numbers Was: Is this the Debian Philosophy? (or.... $#@!@#$ bash 2.0!)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Sat, 16 Aug 1997, Bruce Perens wrote:
> From: Jim Pick <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > Does bash 2.01 solve the problem? We do update 'stable' - we're
> > currently debating that strategy on the debian-private (developers only)
> > mailing list right now. If bash 2.0 is sufficiently broken, then that might
> > merit putting 2.01 into 'stable'.
> I'm going to have to set this straight, since Jim alluded to a discussion
> on our private list.
> The next version of the system will be called "Debian 1.3.1 Revision 1".
> People who make long-term products based on Debian requested that
> we not change the version number of the system if we were only making a
> few bug fixes. For example, X windows was rebuilt because Richard
Hang on, aren't I already running Debian 1.3 Revision 1 (or in other words
`When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to
its subjects, "This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are
forbidden to know," the end result is tyranny and oppression no matter how
holy the motives' -- Robert A Heinlein, "If this goes on --"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .