[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [MiNT] FreeMiNT 1.15.1
- To: MiNT mailing list <mint@fishpool.com>
- Subject: Re: [MiNT] FreeMiNT 1.15.1
- From: "Guido Flohr" <gufl0000@stud.uni-sb.de>
- Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 17:59:52 +0200
- In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.05.9905111728500.29689-100000@proxy.sophics>; from Petr Stehlik on Tue, May 11, 1999 at 05:36:58PM +0200
- Mail-followup-to: MiNT mailing list <mint@fishpool.com>
- References: <Pine.HPP.3.91.990511110406.6470D-100000@csmd33> <Pine.LNX.4.05.9905111728500.29689-100000@proxy.sophics>
- Sender: owner-mint@fishpool.com
On Tue, May 11, 1999 at 05:36:58PM +0200, Petr Stehlik wrote:
> I think that this recent official release should have been labeled with
> 1.16 at least. The reason for this is that MiNT version is stored in the
Agreement. Don't be se greedy with the version numbers.
The same applies for the subsubsubsub version numbering of the
distributions. A while ago (after Ssystem was introduced) there was also
sort of an agreement on something like
MAJOR.MINOR.[REVISION[.BETATAG]]
At least that's what the Ssystem docs say. Directory names like
"1.15.1-1.0.7-src" are a little confusing to me. I would prefer
"mint-1.16.32m". The revision and the optional betatag allow for
thousands of possibilities of subversion numbering. This would also allow
an exact identification of the kernel version via Ssystem. The BUILD_TIME
resp. BUILD_DATE stuff only helps with precompiled kernels.
Ciao
Guido
--
http://stud.uni-sb.de/~gufl0000
mailto:gufl0000@stud.uni-sb.de