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 this release). The additional .N represents an incremental point release, which constitutes changes to a small number of packages which either fix security issues, or major flaws in the given packages. These point releases scared off some vendors because their product was guaranteed to be stale by the time it made it onto retail shelves. This situation (whether real or only perception) has kept Debian from appearing in retail outlets, like computer stores and book stores. To satisfy these concerns (because they impact availability of product to our end users) it was decided to move to a revision number as the method for indicating changes to the release. As usual our timing was poor, in that the decission was implimented after the release of 1.3.1, and on top of that, it was decided to tack the revision number onto the current point release notation rather than revert to having the next revision be 1.3-r2 (we could not decide between r1 and r2 because of the confusion they might entail and settled on 1.3.1-r1 as the next revision after 1.3.1, which seems to have created some confusion as well. Go figure ;-) So, the current version on the ftp site is 1.3.1-r4 which, when converted to the old notation would be 1.3.5 and each of the previous rN's denote previous minor modifications to the 1.3 release. With the release of 2.0 (early next year, with any luck at all) the revision number system will be less confusing as 2.0 will become 2.0-r1 and so on. In addition, the 1.3 release was the first to have an formal attempt made at testing. We can thank the Testing Team and all their good work for the improved stability of 1.3 over 1.2. As a side effect of this additional testing proceedure, (which still goes on before each revision) the length of time between changes to the release has increased somewhat. This has caused some confusion over whether anyone is still working on 1.3 or not. I can assure you that, while the majority of effort is going into 2.0, there is still work being done on 1.3. It has seemed strange that some folks have seen this as abandonment rather than closure... I hope my long-winded explanation will help eliminate some of your (and other folks as well) confusion over this transition in labeling systems. Luck, Dwarf -- _-_-_-_-_-_- _-_-_-_-_-_-_- aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (904) 656-9769 Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tallahassee, FL 32308 _-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_- -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
debian version 1.3.1 ?
I recently add X to my debian box. My debian version still shows 1.3 Shouldn't this now read 1.3.1?? Bob -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
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 reported simply 1.1 and 1.2 when I ran those -- 0.93R6 didn't have any patches). This is possibly because one of the few events that causes a patch to the stable version is the discovery and patching of security holes. If someone can easily determine from your machine what version you're running, he/she may be able to make deductions about the security vulnerabilities of your machine. On the other hand, it may just be because /etc/issue and /etc/issue.net are contained in the base-files and netstd packages respectively, and to keep up with patches, it would be necessary to re-release those two packages every time. Come to think of it, that reason is more likely than the security one (since real crackers would test your system for exploitability regardless of what your issue files said). -- G. Branden Robinson | A committee is a life form with six or Purdue University | more legs and no brain. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Robert Heinlein http://www.ecn.purdue.edu/~branden/ | -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
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 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 reported simply 1.1 and 1.2 when I ran those -- 0.93R6 didn't have any patches). This is possibly because one of the few events that causes a patch to the stable version is the discovery and patching of security holes. If someone can easily determine from your machine what version you're running, he/she may be able to make deductions about the security vulnerabilities of your machine. On the other hand, it may just be because /etc/issue and /etc/issue.net are contained in the base-files and netstd packages respectively, and to keep up with patches, it would be necessary to re-release those two packages every time. Come to think of it, that reason is more likely than the security one (since real crackers would test your system for exploitability regardless of what your issue files said). -- G. Branden Robinson | A committee is a life form with six or Purdue University | more legs and no brain. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Robert Heinlein http://www.ecn.purdue.edu/~branden/ | -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
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 -S debian_version base-files: /etc/debian_version [0] 656 apocalypse ~ 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. On Wed, 8 Oct 1997, Branden Robinson wrote: 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 reported simply 1.1 and 1.2 when I ran those -- 0.93R6 didn't have any patches). This is possibly because one of the few events that causes a patch to the stable version is the discovery and patching of security holes. If someone can easily determine from your machine what version you're running, he/she may be able to make deductions about the security vulnerabilities of your machine. On the other hand, it may just be because /etc/issue and /etc/issue.net are contained in the base-files and netstd packages respectively, and to keep up with patches, it would be necessary to re-release those two packages every time. Come to think of it, that reason is more likely than the security one (since real crackers would test your system for exploitability regardless of what your issue files said). -- G. Branden Robinson | There's nothing an agnostic can't do Purdue University | if he doesn't know whether he believes [EMAIL PROTECTED] | in it or not. http://www.ecn.purdue.edu/~branden/ | -- Graham Chapman -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
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 number for commercial reasons, instead of letting people know what is actually installed on their systems. - http://www.psychosis.com/emc/ Elite MicroComputers 908-541-4214 http://www.psychosis.com/linux-router/ Linux Router Project -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
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 0.93, what version number would you like? Marcus -- Rhubarb is no Egyptian god. Marcus Brinkmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
