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 hit our
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 me.
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 chain
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 more
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Sat, 16 Aug 1997, Bruce Perens wrote:
From: Jim Pick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Does bash 2.01 solve the problem? We do update 'stable' - we're
currently debating that strategy on the debian-private (developers only)
mailing list right now. If bash 2.0 is
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
Hang on,
-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 only making a
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
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. Feel
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 start
10 matches
Mail list logo
