On 8/12/05, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tushar Teredesai wrote these words on 08/11/05 23:41 CST: > > > * Release: For general use. Currently 2.3.4 & 2.2.7. > > * Stable Release: Currently 2.2.6. Proved stable thru general use. > > * Testing Release: Unstable. > > It looks like the release to follow as per the guidelines for other > > packages is the latest release since their definition of stable seems > > to be different from what other maintainers use:) Note that I am not > > suggesting using the latest release for BLFS, just was not sure what > > their terminology is. > > Now I am as confused as you Tush.
:-) > I've always used the 'stable' > versions, however, it appears what is in the book is the 'release' > versions (which in this case right now is 2.2.27). The book is currently at 2.2.24. > > Perhaps in versions past the 'stable' version and the 'release' > versions were the same. I'm thinking this was the case. I don't think the stable and the release versions were ever the same. They promote a release to stable only after it has proved to be stable after general use. > > Biggest tip to me is that in the 'stable' download directories, there > are no release versions just dated versions. Yep, I think they timestamp the stable releases. We have two options: (1) Go with the stable release. In this case we should also use the same timestamp versioned tarballs that they use. (2) Go with the general release (currently 2.3.4). I have no particular preference, but if asked to vote I would vote for (2). -- Tushar Teredesai mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~tushar/ -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
