Janina, Granted you wrote what you did in your first post, but it still does not explain the naming convention that you are defending. Tell me where I am wrong here, and what of this is "irrelevant speculation " As I understand the RPM naming convention: Program name - This is the name of the application, module, library, etc. Version Major number - the latest version of the program. Minor number - the minor version upgrade number of the major version, Revision Number - the latest revision of the minor version. The rpm build number - the latest rpm of the program The Distribution the program is compiled under. So if I have it right, then kernel-2.6.11-1.136_FC4.rpm tells me the following Program name - kernel Major number - 2 Minor Number - 6 Revision number - 11 RPM build - 1.136 Distribution - FC4. There is no "idle speculation " when I read an rpm name and it tells me the above information. So, you tell me in the naming convention where there is any mention of the level to which the kernel is patched and what has been patched into it, and as you put it: "substantively the same as 2.6.12." I know that the kernel is "It is a 2.6.11 kernel", I acknowledged this fact in my earlier post and again above. How is FC not confusing the issue when they decide to make a 2.6.11 kernel appear to be a 2.6.12 kernel by applying a number of patches to it and then calling it a kernel that for all intent it isn't? There is no intent for a debate of who is right or wrong here Janina, all I am doing is asking for clarification, and apparently, you aren't willing to provide it. Oh yeah, I did do a google on this topic, and I am not the only one to think this way. Steve
