SlackwareThis Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
It was always interesting for me whether minor versions mean anything important according to stability etc? Please let me explain, is it correct to say that version 13.37 is more stable and well tested than 13.0?
According to my experience, it seems to me that, for example, 12.2 and 13.37 were more usable and stable releases than 12.0 and 13.0.
Currently I have 13.37 installed in my home computer and 14.0 in my laptop. I think I will wait for some kind of 14.2 to install it to my computer.
So, what do you think about it?
And if you haven't already got it 13.37 is a joke version number.
I agree that the OP has misinterpreted the version level changes for Slackware. And yes, 'leet' label 13.37 is just that, a joke on PV's part. But there are major differences in the 13.37 version and earlier version. Not a joke!
What wildwizard said. Also, considering the kernel jump from 3.2.29 to 3.8.4, it will not be what one'd consider a "minor" release. Even if he calls it 14.1 or 14.0.1 or whatever. I doubt it will come soon, either.
Several projects have chosen to make version numbers meaningless in modern times, and for good or ill Slackware is one of them. Fortunately the the ChangeLog is there to scrutinize and we can make our own decisions on whether the robustness of one release will have any relation to the robustness of the previous release.
That's a lot less convenient than just glancing at the version number, but more meaningful and precise.
Also, considering the kernel jump from 3.2.29 to 3.8.4, it will not be what one'd consider a "minor" release. Even if he calls it 14.1 or 14.0.1 or whatever. I doubt it will come soon, either.
Actually, there's been much less disruptive churn hitting us from upstream in this development cycle than we encountered in the last few releases, so despite what seems like a huge kernel jump, current at present does kind of have the feel of a minor release. Having said that though there's certainly been enough upgrades in it to justify Pat choosing to call it 15.0 if he wishes to. Anyway, my vote goes to "Slackware-MMXIII"
Last edited by GazL; 04-04-2013 at 11:15 AM.
Reason: spotted a typo
So... if one single shared library bumps to a new .soname, then we could no longer use the same major version number for Slackware, according to the rules of semantic versioning.
This seems pretty useless to me. While the idea itself seems very useful for self-contained projects like a free library, with Slackware it would just lead to a version number of <something>.0 for every single release.
While it may seem that there's no rhyme or reason to Slackware's version numbers, there is to some extent. In the case of Slackware 14.0, the kernel finally moving to 3.x was probably enough to justify it, but other events like including the clang compiler for the first time also factored in.