Re: Debian version

On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 1:24 PM Greg Wooledge wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 09, 2021 at 09:22:25AM +, Koler, Nethanel wrote: > > I am Nati, I am trying to find a variable that is configured in the > > linux-headers that can tell me on which Debian I am > > This sounds like an X-Y problem. What's you

Re: Debian version

Koler, Nethanel writes: Hi I am Nati, I am trying to find a variable that is configured in the linux- headers that can tell me on which Debian I am Any reason for not using /etc/os-release instead? IIRC this one is available on RHEL _and_ Debian systems. For example in RedHat After download

Re: Debian version

On Tue, Nov 09, 2021 at 09:22:25AM +, Koler, Nethanel wrote: > I am Nati, I am trying to find a variable that is configured in the > linux-headers that can tell me on which Debian I am This sounds like an X-Y problem. What's your real objective? There is NOT a one-to-one correspondence bet

Re: debian version ID

On Monday 29 August 2016 20:45:21 Andrew M.A. Cater wrote: > /etc/debian_version coincidentally adds the minor > release Whatever the reason, it is very helpful to some of us that it does so, so long may it continue to do so!! :-) Thank you for the helpful explanation, Andrew. Lisi

Re: debian version ID

On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 06:27:39PM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote: > On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 12:27:31PM +0100, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote: > > Felix Miata: > > > > >Will someone please explain (or point to, since it's not in release > > >notes), why: > > >1: /etc/os-release (in Jessie at leas

Re: debian version ID

On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 12:27:31PM +0100, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote: > Felix Miata: > > >Will someone please explain (or point to, since it's not in release > >notes), why: > >1: /etc/os-release (in Jessie at least) does not include the point release > >version as represented by /etc/debian_

Re: debian version ID

On Wed 10 Aug 2016 at 14:31:29 (+0200), Pascal Hambourg wrote: > Le 10/08/2016 à 03:02, Seeker a écrit : > > > >On 8/9/2016 4:49 PM, David Wright wrote: > >>On Tue 09 Aug 2016 at 13:27:34 (-0700), Seeker wrote: > >>> > >>>That was my first thought too, but looking up base-files for one of > >>>the

Re: debian version ID

Le 10/08/2016 à 03:02, Seeker a écrit : On 8/9/2016 4:49 PM, David Wright wrote: On Tue 09 Aug 2016 at 13:27:34 (-0700), Seeker wrote: That was my first thought too, but looking up base-files for one of the LTS releases on packages.ubuntu.com and reading the change log, looks like to do updat

Re: debian version ID

On 8/9/2016 4:49 PM, David Wright wrote: On Tue 09 Aug 2016 at 13:27:34 (-0700), Seeker wrote: On 8/9/2016 4:34 AM, Pascal Hambourg wrote: Le 09/08/2016 à 10:44, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard a écrit : Andrew M.A. Cater: /etc/os-release just contains major version You are going to have to expl

Re: debian version ID

On Tue 09 Aug 2016 at 13:27:34 (-0700), Seeker wrote: > On 8/9/2016 4:34 AM, Pascal Hambourg wrote: > >Le 09/08/2016 à 10:44, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard a écrit : > >>Andrew M.A. Cater: > >>>/etc/os-release just contains major version > >> > >>You are going to have to explain that to its manual page

Re: debian version ID

On 8/9/2016 4:34 AM, Pascal Hambourg wrote: Le 09/08/2016 à 10:44, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard a écrit : Andrew M.A. Cater: /etc/os-release just contains major version You are going to have to explain that to its manual page, which gives VERSION_ID=11.04 as an example of what can be in the fi

Re: debian version ID

Le 09/08/2016 à 10:44, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard a écrit : Andrew M.A. Cater: /etc/os-release just contains major version You are going to have to explain that to its manual page, which gives VERSION_ID=11.04 as an example of what can be in the file. This is obviously not a Debian version. R

Re: debian version ID

On 8/1/2016 1:53 AM, Felix Miata wrote: Ben Finney composed on 2016-08-01 03:20 (UTC-0400): Felix Miata wrote: Will someone please explain (or point to, since it's not in release notes), why: 1: /etc/os-release (in Jessie at least) does not include the point release version as represent

Re: debian version ID

On Mon 01 Aug 2016 at 02:56:54 (-0400), Felix Miata wrote: > Will someone please explain (or point to, since it's not in release notes), > why: > > 1: /etc/os-release (in Jessie at least) does not include the point > release version as represented by /etc/debian_version /etc/os-release is an out

Re: debian version ID

Felix Miata writes: > Given the many possible options[1] for that file's content, one would > think there would be a way to get the extra detail in, maybe > VERSION_ID=8 and VERSION="8.5 (Jessie)", or move "Jessie" to > VERSION_CODENAME and put 8.5 as VERSION. I don't understand what you're aski

Re: debian version ID

Ben Finney composed on 2016-08-01 03:20 (UTC-0400): Felix Miata wrote: Will someone please explain (or point to, since it's not in release notes), why: 1: /etc/os-release (in Jessie at least) does not include the point release version as represented by /etc/debian_version The proximate

Re: debian version ID

On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 02:56:54AM -0400, Felix Miata wrote: > Will someone please explain (or point to, since it's not in release notes), > why: > > 1: /etc/os-release (in Jessie at least) does not include the point release > version as represented by /etc/debian_version > /etc/os-release just

Re: debian version ID

Felix Miata writes: > Will someone please explain (or point to, since it's not in release > notes), why: > > 1: /etc/os-release (in Jessie at least) does not include the point > release version as represented by /etc/debian_version The proximate explanation is: Because the API for that file is d

Re: Debian Version for download 2.4

Hello, culser1242 a écrit : > > do you know a link where I can down load an older Debian Version Image? A repository is also available at > Linux DEB1 2.4.27-2-386 #1 Wed Aug 17 09:33:35 UTC 2005 i686 GNU/Linux IIRC this

Re: Debian version?

Don wrote: > On Wednesday 04 January 2006 12:20 am, Adam Porter wrote: > When I read your email I realized I may not have been quite as clear > as > I should have been. I am curious as to what version of Debian I have > installed now. > > However here is the answer to your questions in case

Re: Debian version?

On Tue, 3 Jan 2006 20:10:37 + Don <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wednesday 04 January 2006 12:20 am, Adam Porter wrote: > When I read your email I realized I may not have been quite as clear as > I should have been. I am curious as to what version of Debian I have > installed now. > >

Re: Debian version?

cat /etc/debian_version Adam Porter wrote: Don wrote: Is there a quick and easy means of determining what "version" I have installed? What's in /etc/apt/sources.list? Anything in /etc/apt/preferences? -- Jerome BENOIT jgmbenoit_at_mailsnare_dot_net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL

Re: Debian version?

On Wednesday 04 January 2006 12:20 am, Adam Porter wrote: When I read your email I realized I may not have been quite as clear as I should have been. I am curious as to what version of Debian I have installed now. However here is the answer to your questions in case that helps. The CD's l

Re: Debian version?

Don wrote: > Is there a quick and easy means of determining what "version" I have > installed? What's in /etc/apt/sources.list? Anything in /etc/apt/preferences? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian version and apt.conf (was Re: i think I switched to Etch without knowing it)

Chris Bannister wrote: On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 02:39:02PM -0400, Marty wrote: Clive Menzies wrote: >On (10/06/05 13:13), Marty wrote: >>This is all very mysterious to me, all these people lacking an apt.conf >>file. >>I wonder how apt can function without it? In particular, how do you >>spec

Re: Debian version and apt.conf (was Re: i think I switched to Etch without knowing it)

On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 02:39:02PM -0400, Marty wrote: > Clive Menzies wrote: > >On (10/06/05 13:13), Marty wrote: > > >>This is all very mysterious to me, all these people lacking an apt.conf > >>file. > >>I wonder how apt can function without it? In particular, how do you > >>specify > >>your

Re: Debian version and apt.conf

Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >More than I even want to think about, actually. Like I said before, >what I've been doing for years always seems to work. :-) The only thing I've ever changed is which release named subdirectory /etc/apt/sources.list points to, over several Debian release cyc

Re: Debian version and apt.conf

David Jardine wrote: On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 06:31:29PM -0400, Marty wrote: David Jardine wrote: >And I still don't understand where you got your apt.conf file >from - it was you wasn't it, Marty (teacher's pet :{ ). > If I did it was some years ago and I don't recall. But why did you call m

Re: Debian version and apt.conf

On 6/10/05, David Jardine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 06:31:29PM -0400, Marty wrote: > > David Jardine wrote: > > >And I still don't understand where you got your apt.conf file > > >from - it was you wasn't it, Marty (teacher's pet :{ ). > > > > > > > If I did it was some y

Re: Debian version and apt.conf

On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 06:31:29PM -0400, Marty wrote: > David Jardine wrote: > >And I still don't understand where you got your apt.conf file > >from - it was you wasn't it, Marty (teacher's pet :{ ). > > > > If I did it was some years ago and I don't recall. But why did you > call me a "teache

Re: Debian version and apt.conf

David Jardine wrote: On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 05:39:54PM -0400, Marty wrote: John Hasler wrote: >Marty writes: >>I still don't understand where apt gets the Debian version. > >Why do you think it cares? I thought apt "knew" about debian version. If the "version" is only a classification for gro

Re: Debian version and apt.conf

On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 05:39:54PM -0400, Marty wrote: > John Hasler wrote: > >Marty writes: > >>I still don't understand where apt gets the Debian version. > > > >Why do you think it cares? > > I thought apt "knew" about debian version. If the "version" is only a > classification for grouping .d

Re: Debian version and apt.conf

John Hasler wrote: Marty writes: I still don't understand where apt gets the Debian version. Why do you think it cares? I thought apt "knew" about debian version. If the "version" is only a classification for grouping .deb files in the archives/repositories, then it raises many more questio

Re: Debian version and apt.conf

Marty writes: > I still don't understand where apt gets the Debian version. Why do you think it cares? -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian version

On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 07:30:49AM +0800, csj wrote: > On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 19:43:50 +, > Jonathan Dowland wrote: > > unstable is always 'sid'. slink/potato/woody started life as > > testing (afaik) before migrating to stable. > > I don't think there was "testing" before slink was released. IR

Re: Debian version

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 19:43:50 +, Jonathan Dowland wrote: [...] > unstable is always 'sid'. slink/potato/woody started life as > testing (afaik) before migrating to stable. I don't think there was "testing" before slink was released. IRC I started using Debian around the time potato was relea

Re: Debian version

> Drew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-11-12 20:40]: > > Thanks, > > This is all thats in my sources.list (comments rm-ed) deb > http://http.us.debian.org/debian stable main contrib non-free deb > http://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US stable/non-US main contrib > non-free deb http://security.debian.org

Re: Debian version

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wednesday 12 November 2003 10:24 am, Drew wrote: > Thanks, > > This is all thats in my sources.list (comments rm-ed) > deb http://http.us.debian.org/debian stable main > contrib non-free > deb http://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US > stable/non-US m

Re: Debian version

On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 08:24:12AM -0800, Drew wrote: > Greetings, > > FWIW I did search the archives first but... > > I am trying to figure out what version of debian I am > running. /etc/issue* and /etc/debian_version all > state unstable/testing, but I don't know when this box > was installed

Re: Debian version

Thanks, This is all thats in my sources.list (comments rm-ed) deb http://http.us.debian.org/debian stable main contrib non-free deb http://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US stable/non-US main contrib non-free deb http://security.debian.org stable/updates main contrib non-free Thanks for the idea ab

Re: Debian version

Drew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I am trying to figure out what version of debian I am > running. /etc/issue* and /etc/debian_version all > state unstable/testing, but I don't know when this box > was installed. This box could be potato, from when > potato was unstable, but how to tell? > > I

Re: Debian version

> Drew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-11-12 17:28]: > > Greetings, > > FWIW I did search the archives first but... > > I am trying to figure out what version of debian I am > running. /etc/issue* and /etc/debian_version all > state unstable/testing, but I don't know when this box > was installed. This

Re: debian version

On Fri, 8 Aug 2003, Shashank Bhide wrote: > Hello all, > I was wondering what is the actual output of uname -a ? Doesn't uname > give the kernel version? How do I know whether I have Debian potato / woody > installed on my system? > Thanks, > Shashank You can try "cat /etc/issue". Version 3

Re: debian version

Shashank Bhide wrote: Hello all, I was wondering what is the actual output of uname -a ? Doesn't uname give the kernel version? How do I know whether I have Debian potato / woody installed on my system? Thanks, Shashank cat /etc/debian_version -- Kent West ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) -- To UN

Re: debian version names

Hi Alex, The names of the versions of Debian are from the Toy Story film, produced by Disney and Pixar studios. They are the names of the caracteres of the film. Potato is the potato head, Woody is the cowboy and so on. You can find more info about the codename on debian's website: http://www.d

Re: debian version names

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 02:03:04AM -0700, Alexander Car?t wrote: > can anyone tell me what the debian version names are ? F.e. what is potato, > what is woody or is there a link where it is explained ? Toy Story character names. Previous ones since

Re: debian version names

On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 02:03:04AM -0700, Alexander Car?t wrote: > Hi to all, > > can anyone tell me what the debian version names are ? F.e. what is potato, > what is woody or is there a link where it is explained ? Look for the Debian Project History at . -- Colin

Re: debian version names

also sprach Alexander Carôt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.06.20.1103 +0200]: > can anyone tell me what the debian version names are ? F.e. what is potato, > what is woody or is there a link where it is explained ? http://www.debian.org/releases/ http://www.debian.org/doc/FAQ/ch-ftparchives.html#s-sour

Re: [DEBIAN] version of tar that does bzip2

On Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 10:19:58AM -0500, Oleg Krivosheev wrote: >is there a version of tar somewhere that will recognize bzip2 >compression? I don't like untarring in two passes :-) Use 'tar xIf aaa.tar.bz2' in slink. The 'I' is for bzip2.

Re: [DEBIAN] version of tar that does bzip2

Howdy, hi there is there a version of tar somewhere that will recognize bzip2 compression? I don't like untarring in two passes :-) huh !?! pipes are your friend bunzip2 -dc aaa.tar.bz2 | tar xvvf - Nico OK

Re: [DEBIAN] version of tar that does bzip2

give tar -xvvfI a try. Its the I which does the unBzip2ing on atleast slink. On Fri, 4 Jun 1999, Nico De Ranter wrote: > > Howdy, > > is there a version of tar somewhere that will recognize bzip2 > compression? I don't like untarring in two passes :-) > > Nico > > -- > --

Re: [DEBIAN] version of tar that does bzip2

Nico De Ranter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > is there a version of tar somewhere that will recognize bzip2 > compression? I don't like untarring in two passes :-) The slink version of tar does this. >From the manual: NAME tar - The GNU version of the tar archiving utility [...]

Re: [DEBIAN] version of tar that does bzip2

Hi Nico, On Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 10:33:28AM +0200, Nico De Ranter wrote: > is there a version of tar somewhere that will recognize bzip2 > compression? I don't like untarring in two passes :-) bzip2 -dc .tar.bz2 | tar -xvf - works with any tar; bzip2 -d uncompresses and -c sends output to stdo

Re: debian version conventions

"Fethi A. Okyar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hello all, > > want to bring the insane naming convention into argument here > for one second. > > This remains to be a mystery for me, I don't know hw I ended up > confusing all the names, slink potato, hamm, beef, etc.. Now I > go down to the sou

Re: debian version conventions

> > This remains to be a mystery for me, I don't know hw I ended up > confusing all the names, slink potato, hamm, beef, etc.. Now I > go down to the source (i.e. ftp.debian.org) and try to figure out > which kernel version is used in which name by looking at base > packages. > > Can somebody c

Re: debian version conventions

"Fethi A. Okyar" wrote: > > Hello all, > > want to bring the insane naming convention into argument here > for one second. > > This remains to be a mystery for me, I don't know hw I ended up > confusing all the names, slink potato, hamm, beef, etc.. Now I > go down to the source (i.e. ftp.debian

Re: debian version 1.3.1 ?

On Wed, 8 Oct 1997, Bob wrote: > I recently add X to my debian box. My debian version still shows 1.3 > > Shouldn't this now read 1.3.1?? > No. The most recent releases have been 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 while the upcomming release is to be 2.0 (which may explain the fairly long developement cycle for

Re: debian version 1.3.1 ?

On Wed, Oct 08, 1997 at 10:06:25PM -0400, Bob wrote: > I recently add X to my debian box. My debian version still shows 1.3 > > Shouldn't this now read 1.3.1?? > > Bob The problem is: what makes your system 1.3.1? If you have one old package installed (or one new from hamm), or a mixture up to 0

Re: debian version 1.3.1 ?

On Wed, 8 Oct 1997 22:06:25 -0400 (EDT), Bob wrote: >I recently add X to my debian box. My debian version still shows 1.3 > >Shouldn't this now read 1.3.1?? It should actualy read somewhere around 1.3.5, but some people in the project have found it to be more important to have a static rev numbe

Re: debian version 1.3.1 ?

On Wed, 8 Oct 1997, Bob wrote: No, I don't think so, for the same reason issue and issue.net aren't updated: [0] 654 apocalypse ~ > dpkg -S issue manpages: /usr/man/man5/issue.5.gz base-files: /etc/issue.net netstd: /usr/man/man5/issue.net.5.gz base-files: /etc/issue [0] 655 apocalypse ~ > dpkg -

Re: debian version 1.3.1 ?

Thanks for the info. I never really thought in terms of security. Should the file /etc/debian_version show 1.3.1. Mine shows 1.3. I know this is a very minor point, I'm just curious. Bob On Wed, 8 Oct 1997, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Wed, 8 Oct 1997, Bob wrote: > > > I recently add X to my

Re: debian version 1.3.1 ?

On Wed, 8 Oct 1997, Bob wrote: > I recently add X to my debian box. My debian version still shows 1.3 > > Shouldn't this now read 1.3.1?? > > Bob I think it's a Debian policy not to "publicize" the patch level of the version. (My /etc/issue, and /etc/issue.net files all report 1.3 as well, and

Re: Debian Version Numbers Was: Is this the Debian Philosophy? (or.... $#@!@#$ bash 2.0!)

On Wed, 20 Aug 97 12:52 PDT, Bruce Perens wrote: >> How about a longer explanation on the list? I'm _SURE_ that _MANY_ >> inquiring minds would like to know. > > >So, we want to make it clear that our CD, even if it is a revision or two >behind, is still _current_ product in that you can easily hi

Re: Debian Version Numbers Was: Is this the Debian Philosophy? (or.... $#@!@#$ bash 2.0!)

On Wed, 20 Aug 1997, Bruce Perens wrote: > > How about a longer explanation on the list? I'm _SURE_ that _MANY_ > > inquiring minds would like to know. [ long explination snipped ] Ok, this makes sense. I will probably never agree with the idea, but I do agree with the reasoning: make debian mo

Re: Debian Version Numbers Was: Is this the Debian Philosophy? (or.... $#@!@#$ bash 2.0!)

> How about a longer explanation on the list? I'm _SURE_ that _MANY_ > inquiring minds would like to know. You'll have noticed from debian-announce that we have reported sales of about 2200 Official 2-CD Sets over the last 8 weeks. Of those CDs, about half were sold by one technical bookstore chai

Re: Debian Version Numbers - My rant on this

To make a too long thread even longer: On Aug 19, Dave Cinege wrote: > On Tue, 19 Aug 97 12:35 PDT, Bruce Perens wrote: > > > >> So I am running Debian version 1.3 - and yet the CD says Debian 1.3.1 . > > > >Oops. My fault. The reason for two numbers is mostly marketing. I know > >that marketing

Re: Debian Version Numbers Was: Is this the Debian Philosophy? (or.... $#@!@#$ bash 2.0!)

On Tue, 19 Aug 1997, Bruce Perens wrote: > > So I am running Debian version 1.3 - and yet the CD says Debian 1.3.1 . > > Oops. My fault. The reason for two numbers is mostly marketing. I know > that marketing is anathema to most of us, but someone's gotta do it and > I'm afraid the task fell on m

Re: Debian Version Numbers - My rant on this

The way I see it is this. On ftp.debian.org there is a directory called "bo-updates" in there are all of the updates, with the changes info, that have happened since the last major release. Ok, so here is my point, since any changes that are done are announced via the "debian-changes" list why do w

Re: Debian Version Numbers - My rant on this

-- > From: Dave Cinege <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: debian-user@lists.debian.org > Subject: Re: Debian Version Numbers - My rant on this > Date: Tuesday, August 19, 1997 8:20 PM > > On Tue, 19 Aug 97 12:35 PDT, Bruc

Re: Debian Version Numbers - My rant on this

On Tue, 19 Aug 1997 17:47:12 -0600 (MDT), Anthony Fok wrote: >On Tue, 19 Aug 1997, Dave Cinege wrote: > >> On Tue, 19 Aug 97 12:35 PDT, Bruce Perens wrote: >> > >> >> So I am running Debian version 1.3 - and yet the CD says Debian 1.3.1 . >> > >> >Oops. My fault. The reason for two numbers is mos

Re: Debian Version Numbers - My rant on this

On Tue, 19 Aug 1997, Dave Cinege wrote: > On Tue, 19 Aug 97 12:35 PDT, Bruce Perens wrote: > > > >> So I am running Debian version 1.3 - and yet the CD says Debian 1.3.1 . > > > >Oops. My fault. The reason for two numbers is mostly marketing. I know > >that marketing is anathema to most of us, bu

Re: Debian Version Numbers - My rant on this

On Tue, 19 Aug 97 12:35 PDT, Bruce Perens wrote: > >> So I am running Debian version 1.3 - and yet the CD says Debian 1.3.1 . > >Oops. My fault. The reason for two numbers is mostly marketing. I know >that marketing is anathema to most of us, but someone's gotta do it and >I'm afraid the task fell

Re: Debian Version Numbers Was: Is this the Debian Philosophy? (or.... $#@!@#$ bash 2.0!)

On Tue, 19 Aug 1997, Bruce Perens wrote: > [snip] The reason for two numbers is mostly marketing. I know > that marketing is anathema to most of us, but someone's gotta do it and > I'm afraid the task fell on me. Feel free to call me up if you need a > longer explanation. > > But maybe we should

Re: Debian Version Numbers Was: Is this the Debian Philosophy? (or.... $#@!@#$ bash 2.0!)

> bash$ cat /etc/debian_version > 1.3 > bash$ > > So I am running Debian version 1.3 - and yet the CD says Debian 1.3.1 . Oops. My fault. The reason for two numbers is mostly marketing. I know that marketing is anathema to most of us, but someone's gotta do it and I'm afraid the task fell on me.

Re: Debian Version Numbers Was: Is this the Debian Philosophy? (or.... $#@!@#$ bash 2.0!)

I concur. The next release of the stable tree should be called 1.3 Revision 2, not 1.3.1 Revision 1. What problem has this solved for CD retailers? Will they still be bummed when 1.3 Revision X+1 is released and they just got 1.3 Revision X on the shelves? Did it make any difference that it

Re: Debian Version Numbers Was: Is this the Debian Philosophy? (or.... $#@!@#$ bash 2.0!)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Tue, 19 Aug 1997, joost witteveen wrote: > > > 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 onl

Re: Debian Version Numbers Was: Is this the Debian Philosophy? (or.... $#@!@#$ bash 2.0!)

> > 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 > > H