Welcome to the most active Linux Forum on the web.
Go Back > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Slackware
User Name
Slackware This Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.


  Search this Thread
Old 04-06-2013, 06:13 PM   #16
Didier Spaier
LQ Addict
Registered: Nov 2008
Location: Paris, France
Distribution: Slackware{,64}-{14.1,current} on a Lenovo Thinkpad W520
Posts: 6,673

Rep: Reputation: 2068Reputation: 2068Reputation: 2068Reputation: 2068Reputation: 2068Reputation: 2068Reputation: 2068Reputation: 2068Reputation: 2068Reputation: 2068Reputation: 2068

Originally Posted by onebuck View Post
I provided link to historic Slackware versions for members who may wish to know where to get earlier versions.
For the records, the mirror that I am aware which keeps the oldest is, thanks to the folks at the University of Oslo and especially to Lars Strand.

Oh, and I keep a local mirror of slackware-1.1.2 and slackware-3.0, just in case
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 04-06-2013, 06:16 PM   #17
Alien Bob
Slackware Contributor
Registered: Sep 2005
Location: Eindhoven, The Netherlands
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 6,232

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
I have that older version 1.1.2 here:

1 members found this post helpful.
Old 04-07-2013, 08:47 AM   #18
Registered: Jan 2005
Location: Midwest USA, Central Illinois
Distribution: SlackwareŽ
Posts: 12,432
Blog Entries: 23

Rep: Reputation: 1864Reputation: 1864Reputation: 1864Reputation: 1864Reputation: 1864Reputation: 1864Reputation: 1864Reputation: 1864Reputation: 1864Reputation: 1864Reputation: 1864
Member response


Thanks guys for the updated links. I updated the links in SlackwareŽ-Links. Eric, the 'washer' link was broken. Completely forgot about you 'taper' upgrade.
Old 04-07-2013, 10:45 PM   #19
Senior Member
Registered: May 2008
Location: Poland
Distribution: Slackware, Mint
Posts: 1,252

Rep: Reputation: 205Reputation: 205Reputation: 205

These numbers: 12.0, ..., 12.2, 13.0, ..., 13.37, 14.0, and perhaps 14.2 mean that the next release is better than the previous one. To be precise all those releases are very stable but the newer ones include the newer versions of almost all programs and are compatible with the newer hardware so I called them better than the previous ones.

By the way: most of the guys above joked a bit because the numerology causes that some people start to joke by default (and me too from time to time). So do not try to figure out what these guys tried to tell you because they did not talk to you at all.
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 04-08-2013, 12:24 AM   #20
Registered: Sep 2011
Posts: 922

Rep: Reputation: 469Reputation: 469Reputation: 469Reputation: 469Reputation: 469
Originally Posted by volkerdi View Post
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.
Some operating systems try to keep minor revisions binary compatible, while major revisions don't have such a requirement. In my own distribution I would tie that to libc upgrades or other important stuff. For example Slackware 11.0 is compatible with Sun StarOffice 5.2 while Slackware 12.0 (and later) isn't due to the NTPL/linuxthreads issue.

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.
I think, the kernel version doesn't matter much in semantic versioning, because viewed from the userland the kernel ABI is very stable across versions. Even the jump to Linux 3.0 didn't change much in that respect. (Inside the kernel there is no stable API even from the source perspective, so that doesn't matter.)
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 04-08-2013, 08:58 AM   #21
Richard Cranium
Senior Member
Registered: Apr 2009
Location: Carrollton, Texas
Distribution: Slackware64 14.2
Posts: 2,353

Rep: Reputation: 884Reputation: 884Reputation: 884Reputation: 884Reputation: 884Reputation: 884Reputation: 884
Originally Posted by ttk View Post
That having been said, I'd be thrilled to pieces if Slackware switched to semantic versioning.
I always preferred libtool's ideas on the matter. YMMV.

Even so, there's no real way to implement the libtool concept in an OS unless every upstream component did the same thing.
1 members found this post helpful.


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
upgrading debian minor build versions and from stable to testing Cultist Debian 3 03-23-2012 08:45 PM
[SOLVED] what are the other differences between fedora versions except their kernel versions teja_vijjapu Fedora 1 01-23-2012 06:38 AM
[SOLVED] Prepare firmware versions availability for current versions mufy AIX 2 01-03-2011 10:19 AM
normal versions vs LTS versions altella Ubuntu 1 11-15-2009 10:39 AM
gcc versions compatibility with kernel versions.. mahesh_manthapuri SUSE / openSUSE 1 03-22-2006 12:28 AM

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:09 AM.

Main Menu
Write for LQ is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration