On Mon, Aug 03, 1998 at 08:55:00AM -0500, Nathan E Norman wrote: > On Sun, 2 Aug 1998, Joey Hess wrote: > > : George Bonser wrote: > : > No, LSB would not dictate Debian's version but Debian could say that > : > Debian-2.0 is LSB-1.2 compliant and someone looking at Red Hat 5.2 might > : > see that it, too, is LSB-1.2 compliant and get the idea that both are > : > roughly equal. > : > : Someone might today, see that both debian and redhat contain kernel 2.0 and > : draw the conclusion they are both about equally up-to-date. Both > : distributions mentinn which kernel they contain in press releases and ads > : and so on. The fact that some people don't make this connection doesn't make > : me optimistic about them being less confused when a third version number is > : added to the mix. > > Has it actually been determined that the LSB will provide version > numbers to be used in such a context? If not, then this whole argument > is silly. > > Even then it's a bit silly - let's imagine that a new Linux distribution > arrived on the scene. They're either going to start versioning with a > number between zero and one, or pull a fast one and jack up their > version number?!
good point...and who even says version numbers have to work in that way anyway? Many individual programs have versions like "19980420" ...or what if I want to start with 100 and count down ;) or increase it by powers of 3? (yes these are even more silly...but still possible) -Steve -- /* -- Stephen Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>------------ */ E-mail "Bumper Stickers": "A FREE America or a Drug-Free America: You can't have both!" "honk if you Love Linux" -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] < /dev/null
