On Wednesday 03 September 2003 11:50, Radek Vybiral wrote: > On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, John Allen wrote: > > On Wednesday 03 September 2003 10:17, Radek Vybiral wrote: > > > On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, Robert Pollak wrote: > > > > John Keller wrote: > > > > > Cooker is always in flux but at certain moments, snapshots are > > > > > made. > > > > > > > > Does this mean there will be no further stabilizing branch after 9.2, > > > > to eventually get a 9.2.1? > > > > > > You may get 9.2.1 = 9.2 + updates. > > > > Whilst this is true, it would perhaps be better to have a real 9.2.1, > > 9.2.2 etc.... > > > > ie. official points in time that reflect a 9.2 + a specific set of > > updates. the /etc/mandrake-release file should also say 9.2.1 etc... > > Hmm, you are wrong again... > > I guess you are too young in this Unix/Linux world. I don't know about any > Unix system which goes through the way you are describing. >
Wrong again; been working with Unix systems for the last 18 years. > We have systems with service packs, patched, build ID greater than release > build, but major release number is always without touch. > > Many packages takes version from /etc/mandrake-release, many commercial > programs are build for exact version of release, etc. > You could of course do this Mandrake Linux release 9.2 Patch Level 0 (Cooker) for i586 Mandrake Linux release 9.2 Patch Level 1 (Cooker) for i586 . . . . > It will be also a headache for users if they will be forced to upgrade to > the latest version because all packages reguires 9.2.1... > > R.V. -- John Allen, Email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] MandrakeClub Silver Member.
