On Sat, 2003-04-12 at 05:02, Mike A. Harris wrote: > On 11 Apr 2003, Benjamin Vander Jagt wrote: > > >> never tried prelinking myself so cant help there > >> not suprised you never tried 8.1 cause it has never existed. > > > >Okay okay, I mean Phoebe. I had guessed 8.1 beta would become 8.1, so I > >got into the habit of calling it 8.1. When I refer to "8.1", I mean > >Phoebe, which was beta to 9. > > There was never an "8.1 beta". Go back and look at any Red Hat > beta release and you will not find any beta that says it is "8.1 > beta". Our beta releases have not ever been called what the > final release of the product will be plus the word beta. For > example, what became 8.0, was not "8.0 beta", it was several > beta releases numbered 7.3.9x where x was an internal build > number of that beta release, which generally varies from 0 to 5 > roughly. The betas for Red Hat Linux 7.1 were 7.0.9x, the betas > for 7.2 were 7.1.9x, the betas for 7.3 were 7.2.9x, the betas for > 8.0 were 7.3.9x, and the betas for 9 were 8.0.9x. There was > never an 8.1 beta. > > The only "8.1" is that which was invented by various users out > there in their own minds as to what the next Red Hat Linux > release would be called based on some historical precedence. For Not completely true, Mike. In March there was a posting at RedHat.com for a support person. It specifically said it was for a position that would include "during the release of Red Hat Linux 8.1". :^) I haven't looked since March though. -- Bill Anderson RHCE #807302597505773 bill@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
