From: Jim Pick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 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
Stallman requested that XDM display "Debian GNU/Linux" rather than just
"Debian Linux". It's worthwhile to insert that change, but not
worthwhile to make everyone think they need to upgrade their systems
because of it. Thus, we will not bump the release number to 1.3.2 for minor
changes.
This has been a large problem for some kinds of retailers, such
as bookstores - they will not carry Debian unless we can promise them that
we will give them a life-cycle longer than one month on their product.
You will notice that both Red Hat and Slackware do not change their version
numbers for bug fixes _at_all_. We will be changing the revision number, but
not the release number.
Thanks
Bruce
--
Can you get your operating system fixed when you need it?
Linux - the supportable operating system. http://www.debian.org/support.html
Bruce Perens K6BP [EMAIL PROTECTED] 510-215-3502
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
