On Tue, 2003-04-01 at 06:49, Martin Marques wrote: > On Mar 01 Abr 2003 10:33, Terry Barnaby wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Is it true that RedHat have abandoned their Versioning policy for > > Redhat Linux ? > > > > Previously all major binary changes were signified by a change in > > major version number and minor updates by the second .x number. > > > > Reading some of the current emails floating around it is said that > > Redhat will only now use integer version numbers (ie 9,10,11) etc .. > > > > Is this true ? > > Yes! >
No this isnt correct, I dont know where poeple get this from. Redhat ( and many other projects ) changes the major version number when the next version created binary incompatability, that is when compiled binaries wont run as-is. They did the same thing for 8.0 which had a new libc library to accomodate the new C++ ABI in the new GCC compiler. All other distros needed to do the same, and it was a necessary evil to get GCC competetive with other C++ compilers, and a godsend to C++ developers. This time Redhat has backported a number of powerful features from the 2.5.x kernels, including a new Threading implementation which essentially brings linux threading from a functional toy to enterprise class performance. The implementation is possibly better than windows2000 or even solaris, and it required a change to the user mode thread library ( in libc ), thus breaking binary compatability. Since this will eventually appear in the stable 2.6 kernel, binary providers like Sun will have to redo their binaries anyways. As for the lack of .0 in the title, this is the EXACT same thing they did with Redhat 7, and everybody then was breathlessly asking if there would be no more .x releases. Who cares its just a name. I couldnt care less if it was called Redhat 2003. Cheers, Ryan -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
