Philip Hands dijo [Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 10:10:49AM +0200]:
> IIRC the "official" thing came in because someone produced a CD for a
> magazine cover for some early release (1.2 maybe?) that was actually
> slightly pre-release,
1.0, no less. With all the magic that 1.0 implies.
> because their publication date was set to coincide with the actual
> release, but there was a significant bug with that CD image, so we
> were forced to call the actual release CDs 1.2.1 (or whatever) in
> order to distinguish between the other (widely distributed, buggy)
> version and the actual release.
>
> I seem to remember that is was quite annoying at the time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_version_history
Debian 1.0 was never released, as a vendor accidentally shipped a
development release with that version number. The package
management system dpkg and its front-end dselect were developed
and implemented on Debian in a previous release. A transition from
the a.out binary format to the ELF binary format had already begun
before the planned 1.0 release. The only supported architecture
was Intel 80386 (i386).
> Calling certain images "official" was an attempt to stop that sort of
> thing happening again.
>
> Does anyone still mass-produce CDs?
Of course, anybody still can take a snapshot of testing and distribute
it on a (huge amount of) CDs, calling it "Official Debian 12 (Bugworm)".
There is no magic in the "Official" word. Much less in 1996, where we
didn't even have a trademark (or did we? I'm too young to know... Hey!
I was looking for an opinion to flash that card! 😉)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature