-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
>>>>> "Paul" == Paul Wouters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Am Wednesday 04 October 2006 18:37 schrieb Paul Wouters: >
>> openswan series 2.4 is our "stable" tree. Development is
>> happening in > 2.5.x (git #public) and 2.6.x (git #ocf). Debian
>> stable should upgrade > their openswan to 2.4.x I talked to the
>> release manager. This won't happen. But the next Debian stable
>> release will have openswan 2.4.6.
Paul> I'll clarify our versioning on the website so you can point
Paul> the release manager to it. It is indeed unclear that 2.2.x ->
Paul> 2.3.x -> 2.4.x are minor stable updates and that currently our
Paul> badly named 2.5.0/#public and 2.6.0/#ocf are major new
Paul> versions. We're contemplating calling them 3.x and 4.x
We called it 2.3.x because, at the time, it had somewhat experimental
code in it. But, then we did 2.3.1, and it proved very stable.
2.4 was the first version to fully support the 2.6 kernel, I guess.
But, that doesn't mean that the userland code was less stable.
So, how can we express this in a meaningful way?
- --
] Bear: "Me, I'm just the shape of a bear." | firewalls [
] Michael Richardson, Xelerance Corporation, Ottawa, ON |net architect[
] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/mcr/ |device driver[
] panic("Just another Debian GNU/Linux using, kernel hacking, security guy"); [
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Finger me for keys
iQEVAwUBRSQSf4CLcPvd0N1lAQLacgf9HKnq44dfy0+JqYtNK/+KwRgBia7+0F45
9O3NrUYOSWA5/EJrohgf8WTOzKd5uAzgEfvMDxzGIOyFl8xVa0erMkfG8vxQBa/T
VMgiuraduThYdUBuz8imhHPIggUzMNaQFdxhnBJ2o5LLg3bk7snaQLroHhLkm1zz
4Nexy1tZNEYBjzfLnTJO3p4XB3OBGhxU0xF6XHlzpQRoirpRzf+BrCPhRvFasfP0
TX5h7vk4kq0Sl1mVBhwpmlQMufn91V5oquCQNP52asNe0qyLsIlysYnPjJ24uv2j
7V/ktf64QLDF4LorswcTQ1HqKnPhNT7BDsuUsqfV/xItkvbK5WkWqg==
=hkI7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
