On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 12:50:49PM -0400, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
> As such, I would suggest we adopt a nomenclature to retro-name RHL to FC
> 0.x. This would both solve some confusion _and_ the trademark
> concerns.
There was a suggestion (Nov 2003?) to "rename" RHL7.3 etc. to FC0.7.3
etc. in order to get the disttag issues straightened out (the natural
disttag "rh9" is not rpm-less than "fc1"). If I am not wrong fedora.us
is using a similar scheme with stripped away distids, i.e. they don't
use fc0.7.3 but plain 0.7.3 in the versioning.
FWIW I would very much welcome a common versioning scheme for RHL & FC
that could look like
fc0.7.3 < fc0.8.0 < fc0.9 < fc1 < fc2 < fc2.90 etc
The confusion will be high, and unless all packaging parties use the
same semantics users will be lost.
The discussion in the past has shown very low to none interest by RH,
and N^2 disttag suggestions from N 3rd parties, so there is low chance
of anything happening.
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpUTExkmgMXl.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-legacy-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
