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! 😉)
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
