| 1 |
On Thursday 14 August 2003 03:20 pm, Owen Gunden wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 10:58:35PM +0200, Spider wrote: |
| 3 |
> > None, there wouldn't be any difference at all in your system. 1.4 is |
| 4 |
> > the package release and the livecd's, not the resulting systems. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> This kind of question comes up all the time. I often wonder if it's not a |
| 7 |
> waste of effort to try and force gentoo into a notion of "releases", when |
| 8 |
> it's so unnatural to do so. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> It would be cool to come up with some other, more gentoo-ish way of |
| 11 |
> expressing progress in the distribution. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Ideas anyone? Or am I being a total kook? |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Owen |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
This notion has been expressed over and over again -- and it's a very good |
| 18 |
one. I, too, think that Gentoo should move away from the concept of |
| 19 |
definitive releases. However, it would be very hard to distinguish landmark |
| 20 |
releases from eachother without some sort of versioning system. Also, |
| 21 |
sometimes something very major happens in Linux that requires the separation |
| 22 |
of landmark releases for the sake of system sanity (think gcc 2.x.x -> gcc |
| 23 |
3.x.x). |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
I really have no ideas on how else it should be done, but it does need a |
| 26 |
change. Some users feel obligated to reinstall, and do so needlessly. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Zack Gilburd |
| 30 |
http://tehunlose.com |
| 31 |
GnuPG Key ID: A79A45668240AB6C |
Archives