This change of style already reached consensus once (that's why the
releases and the official CDs are both labeled this way).
The documentation is out of date, and should cite examples like 1.2r3
Cheers, Phil.
On Sun, Sep 12, 1999 at 06:03:30PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
>
> Of course they like it... They can advertise "Debian 2.1" and even if
> there's a new point release available they can continue selling old
> versions until they run out. And when people order it, they'll get the
> new version or
On Sun, Sep 12, 1999 at 04:22:26PM -0400, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> > I'd rather fix the 1.3r2 problem and go back to 1.3.2, it's less confusing
> > and only the greenest of users couldn't figure it out.
>
> Huh? Alexander is correct! What are you saying here -- you want to
> change how the archive
> On Wed, Sep 08, 1999 at 04:07:42PM -0400, Alexander Pennace wrote:
> > since bo, point releases have been identified like 1.3r2.
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'd rather fix the 1.3r2 problem and go back to 1.3.2, it's less confusing
> and only the greenest of users couldn't figur
On Wed, Sep 08, 1999 at 04:07:42PM -0400, Alexander Pennace wrote:
> Quoting from section 4.2.14:
>
> stable
> This is the current `released' version of Debian GNU/Linux. A new
> version is released approximately every 3 months after the development
> code has been frozen for a month of test
Package: packaging-manual
Version: 3.0.1.1
Quoting from section 4.2.14:
stable
This is the current `released' version of Debian GNU/Linux. A new
version is released approximately every 3 months after the development
code has been frozen for a month of testing. Once the distribution is
stabl
6 matches
Mail list logo
