[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: : Why the heck doesn't Debian use the release number (e.g., 1.3, 1.3.x) as : the primary (canonical) name? Then when you seem 1.2 and 1.3, you can : tell which is newer and which is older.
That was done one time: whilst 1.0 was being developed, it was stored on the archive as 1.0. InfoMagic saw this, thought "Oooh, goody!" and put it on their Debian CD. It wasn't complete. It was severely broken. This led to the current system of "stable" and "unstable", with version numbers only being setup when the "current" version is/was complete. Just FWIW. -- Running at a mere 104 billion instructions per second, the SX4 appears to be the only machine actually capable of running Office '97. -- ChipChat, Australian Personal Computer, September 1997 (paraphrased.) -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
