Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



> Why was Java 1.4 succeeded by Java 5? Why was ICU 4.8.1 succeeded by ICU
49.1? Why does systemd have version 197 instead of 1.9.7 or somesuch?
 
If you look at the source code and the package names, Java wasn't really renumbered that badly, Java 1.4 was succeeded by Java 1.5, and Java 1.5 by Java 1.6. They're just marketed misleadingly.  Sun's desicsion to screw up numbering this way is a reflection of when they tried to "SunOS 4" as "Solaris 2.5".
 
A better example is when the update of Red Hat 9 got renumbered and updated to RHEL 2.x. And don't *get* me going on mod_perl numbering or CPAN version numbering. (Whose bright idea was it to use floating point? Version 2.237 is older than version 2.3 ?)
 
 
 
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]
  Powered by Linux