LinuxQuestions.org
Support LQ: Use code LQ3 and save $3 on Domain Registration
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Slackware
User Name
Password
Slackware This Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.

Notices

Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 06-08-2004, 09:23 AM   #1
SBing
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2004
Posts: 519

Rep: Reputation: 35
Version bumping in slackware - your opinion?


We were chatting in this thread about the next release of slackware, when Toth pointed out that the changelog gave hints as to a 10.0 release

Quote:
Originally posted by Toth
If you've been keeping track of development on -current you'll notice that today pkgtools was upgraded to 10.0. The version of pkgtools is always kept in sync with the version of Slackware, so we can expect 10.0 within the month I'd bet.
I went of to study the ChangeLog for -current, and saw this:

Quote:
ChangeLog.txt
Wed Jun 2 11:29:58 PDT 2004
a/pkgtools-9.2.0-i486-2.tgz: Removed sample XF86Config files and
xfree86setup script. Fixed root:bin owner on xorgsetup script.


and

Mon Jun 7 00:56:25 PDT 2004
a/pkgtools-10.0.0-i486-1.tgz: Removed soon-to-be-obsolete "head -1"
syntax from pkgtool (thanks to Stuart Winter).
Now it is totally up to Patrick what version he calls Slackware, but didn't this happen in the past with slackware 4 - "Why the jump from 4 to 7?"

Do you think that distros inflate this numbers intentionally to try and make Distro 10.2 > OtherDistro 10.1 ?

Maybe it'd be better having names/dates for these versions?

What do you think?

Steve
 
Old 06-08-2004, 10:39 AM   #2
keefaz
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2004
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 4,341

Rep: Reputation: 73
What is the nature of your interest about slackware version number ?
 
Old 06-08-2004, 11:37 AM   #3
datadriven
Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Holly Hill, Florida
Distribution: Slackware 10.1
Posts: 317

Rep: Reputation: 30
There's are major version changes in both KDE and Gnome, & IMO that warrants calling it version 10 instead of 9.2 or whatever. I hope it's called Slackware X, I think it has a nice ring to it.
 
Old 06-08-2004, 12:01 PM   #4
Toth
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2003
Posts: 83

Rep: Reputation: 15
In general, I'm not a fan of version bumping just to match version numbers of other distributions.

However, the bump from 9.1 to 10.0 makes sense. Look at 8.1 to 9.0: that included a major bump in GCC, an upgrade to XFree86, a major bump for GNOME (1.4 to 2.2) and a major bump for KDE. Then look at 9.0 to 9.1. The only major upgrade was GNOME 2.2 to 2.4. Most of the other upgrades (KDE, etc.) were minor. No major change in GCC or XFree86.

Now look at -current. XFree86 has been dropped in favor of X.org (as well as essentially a major version bump), GCC has seen a major version bump as well as both KDE and GNOME. Also, better support for 2.6 series kernels (udev, sysfs), and the possibility that a 2.6 kernel might be an option at install time (I highly doubt it'll be the default if it's even an option). Slackware 10.0 makes sense.

I do think it would have been better had he not skipped from version 4 to version 7, but it's just a number anyway and completely up to him.

Last edited by Toth; 06-08-2004 at 12:02 PM.
 
Old 06-08-2004, 12:23 PM   #5
ringwraith
Senior Member
 
Registered: Sep 2003
Location: Indiana
Distribution: Slackware-current
Posts: 1,244

Rep: Reputation: 47
I would like to see him drop down to v. 5 since that hasn't been used yet. That would sow confusion amongst the masses. But that isn't likely. Pat made it clear when the oldest existing version of linux has a version of 4 and all the newcomer competitors are at 7, he will jump to make a point that they are being stupid. So he will continue to keep up I would assume.
 
Old 06-08-2004, 12:24 PM   #6
SBing
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2004
Posts: 519

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 35
Quote:
Originally posted by datadriven
I hope it's called Slackware X, I think it has a nice ring to it.
Yeh I was thinking that, Slackware X would sound nice but I seriously doubt it'd happen. I guess the jump to 10 is warranted, but I still would prefer names rather than numbers - maybe they should call the next slackware:

Slackware Shrike (or not...)

:)

Steve
 
Old 06-08-2004, 01:01 PM   #7
Toth
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2003
Posts: 83

Rep: Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally posted by SBing
Yeh I was thinking that, Slackware X would sound nice but I seriously doubt it'd happen. I guess the jump to 10 is warranted, but I still would prefer names rather than numbers - maybe they should call the next slackware
Switching to roman numerals would actually be pretty cool

Slackware X, X.1, XI, XI.1, etc.
 
Old 06-08-2004, 01:30 PM   #8
Astro
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2003
Location: Ballston Lake, NY
Distribution: Slackware, Debian
Posts: 660

Rep: Reputation: 30
How about Slackware N+1 Where N+1 is always equal to the correct and most appealing version number? :P
 
Old 06-08-2004, 01:31 PM   #9
neocookie
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2004
Location: Leeds, UK
Distribution: FC1, FC2, Debian
Posts: 308

Rep: Reputation: 30
Quote:
Originally posted by Toth
Switching to roman numerals would actually be pretty cool

Slackware X, X.1, XI, XI.1, etc.
I'd agree with that. It would set itself apart from the other distros out there. 8.0, 8.2 etc is all well and good but seems a little dull. And debian's naming convention is (to me) a little confuzzling.

Maybe its just me, but slack does seem to be a little lacking in the "image" department. Don't get me wrong, I love slack and (probably) wouldn't go with anything else, but at the same time I'd love to see my fav. distro get a bit of an image make-over. Redhat has the red hat, gentoo has the big G, SuSE has the lizard, Mandrake has the star-thingy and the play on the penguin, and slack... well... its one of the major distros but hasn't been "sexed up". Shame, really.

LOL, just imagine; "Slackware X (Mac-style aqua globe with pair of khaki trousers being held up by crossed braces to simulate the X)". Now that would be something!
 
Old 06-08-2004, 02:28 PM   #10
Toth
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2003
Posts: 83

Rep: Reputation: 15
On second thought, X, X.1, X.2, XI, XI.1 would be kind of confusing.

X, XI, XII, XIII, would be better....or maybe X release 1, X release 2, XI release 1, XI release 2, XI release 3, etc.

Meh, I've come to the conclusion I'm putting entirely too much thought into this

edit: and not nearly enough thought into spell checking

Last edited by Toth; 06-08-2004 at 02:29 PM.
 
Old 06-08-2004, 02:34 PM   #11
XavierP
Moderator
 
Registered: Nov 2002
Location: Kent, England
Distribution: Lubuntu
Posts: 19,174
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 428Reputation: 428Reputation: 428Reputation: 428Reputation: 428
NB: Slack has the Propoganda page with lots of logos. Slackware has the Church of the Subgenius head J.R. "Bob" Dobbs. Also, the pipe is used with Tux.
 
Old 06-08-2004, 04:10 PM   #12
slakmagik
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2003
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 4,113

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Ours go up to 11.

Seriously - if anybody's 10 (and they are) Slack could be 11. Flipside, yeah, I'd prefer if no one had bumped any numbers anywhere.

Really, though, I agree with those who point to the significant version changes in a number of significant apps as the key - I'd consider 9.2 artificially holding back the number the way it sounds.

It's just a number. All I care about is that it's released and is genuine Slackware quality. Now, please.
 
Old 06-08-2004, 04:22 PM   #13
Big Al
Member
 
Registered: Jun 2002
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 143

Rep: Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally posted by datadriven
There's are major version changes in both KDE and Gnome, & IMO that warrants calling it version 10 instead of 9.2 or whatever. I hope it's called Slackware X, I think it has a nice ring to it.
As long as Pat doesn't call it Slackware 10 Pro (Slack XP).
 
Old 06-08-2004, 04:50 PM   #14
ringwraith
Senior Member
 
Registered: Sep 2003
Location: Indiana
Distribution: Slackware-current
Posts: 1,244

Rep: Reputation: 47
I agree with Xavier, what could be sexier than Bob.
 
Old 06-08-2004, 05:11 PM   #15
Toth
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2003
Posts: 83

Rep: Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally posted by Big Al
As long as Pat doesn't call it Slackware 10 Pro (Slack XP).
The Slackware eXPerience!
 
  


Reply


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
slackware version fatboy21 Slackware 5 08-28-2005 02:47 AM
Slackware version... darkarcon2015 Slackware 6 02-11-2005 05:19 PM
bumping fc3 and enjoying this great forum! nmucats LinuxQuestions.org Member Intro 2 12-31-2004 08:34 PM
slackware startx starts the wrong version, i didn't even know i had another version edman007 Linux - Software 3 05-16-2004 07:38 PM
Newer Slackware Packages on older slackware version pengStudent Slackware 2 11-12-2003 12:47 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:00 PM.

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