Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

Bancobusto · Joined: 13 Jun 2005 Posts: 168 Location: Vancouver Island

Don't know if this helps, maybe there are more than on usr_devx.sfs out there, but here's the one I have, seems to work just swelll....

http://www.nstsoftware.com/puppy/

rarsa · Posted: Mon 08 Aug 2005, 16:07 Post subject:

Barry,

If you are planning to move to the proposed (doopdoop) iceWM improved look and feel, plus having the ability to compile from within Puppy, plus all the other goodies, I really think that the next version of puppy should reflect it.

Those two items alone (ability to compile + new look and feel) separate the next release from the previous versions.

One of the standard ways packages and apps versions are numbered is

<major>.<minor>.<fix>.<build>

<major> Major version usually not fully backwards compatible
<minor> Substantial new features but still backwards compatible.
<fix> Small number of new features, usually resolving anoyances and bugs.
<build> Just meaningfull during development to differentiate test versions.

What rules are you following to number puppy's versions?

I'm actually thorn between suggesting 2.0.0 or 1.1.0

I really think that 1.0.5 does not make justice to the actual relevance of the release. I know that you that look at puppy every day may not realize how much it has grown.