On Sat, 16 Aug 1997, Bruce Perens wrote: > 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.
I'm unable to subscribe to debian-devel, or debian-private because neither is available in digest form. I've missed this discussion there, so forgive em if these have been answered, but i have some concerns about this. Is Debian not including fixes into the "official" CD image because of COMMERCIAL concerns??? Are the bug/security fixes there, but the name just not changed? Which is it? How does this naming convention have any impact on the contents of a CD if the changes are still there but the name not changed? It sounds strange to me that having a name last more than one month would have any impact on the contents if they're still being fixed/updated, etc. Also, on Richard Stallman, Is the FSF going to start selling Debian GNU/Linux CDs? Way back when, that was on there web site (I think), but then the whole mess happened, is now fixed, and looks like we're talking again. Any news of that? They used to say they might sell Gnu/Linux to fund other research, etc. Debian may do well to concede the "official" CD to them if they're interested. That would get us out of the CD business all together, and back in the Free Software business. Having someone else produce an officially endorced CD (as an OEM, for example) might clear up these kinds of mis-perceptions. A distribution based on putting quality first can't afford commercial conflicts of interest, lest our differentiating feature become bogus. I remember backing the decision to produce an official CD image at the time because of the need to improve our commercial viability, but we should checkpoint the effectiveness of that decision now and make sure our priorities haven't changed unintentionally. This is not an invitation to a flame war, nor is it a judgement. I just want to know what's happenning (as a debian user.) If Bruce says not to worry, I won't worry. But I'd like to know one way or another. Private mail is OK if this topic is being dubbed "unfit for public discussion". I'm still a "debian developer" in that I still maintain a debian package. I am only subscribed to this list and admintool (low traffic, but still no digest :-( ) Cheers, -- "Until we extend the circle of our compassion to all living things, we will not ourselves find peace" -Albert Schweitzer Richard G. Roberto -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
