Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 10:10:28 -0800 From: Colin Percival <cperciva@freebsd.org> To: Danny Howard <dannyman@toldme.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Status of 6.0 for production systems Message-ID: <43738D14.9030006@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20051110180048.GB23887@ratchet.nebcorp.com> References: <20051110012313.GB22149@mind.net> <54db43990511091749h7b7c0753vbf7adbce94eff6cc@mail.gmail.com> <20051110081424.GA46702@xor.obsecurity.org> <20051110180048.GB23887@ratchet.nebcorp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Danny Howard wrote: > So ... I am genuinely curious ... if 6.0 is basically 5.4 plus > improvements, why isn't it called 5.5? FreeBSD numbers releases based on compatibility, not based on features. You can take programs compiled for FreeBSD 5.3 (the first release from the 5-stable branch) and run them on FreeBSD 5.4 and know that they will all work; but if you want to run them on FreeBSD 6.0, you might need to recompile them. This is generally more of an issue for kernel modules than it is for applications, but the point remains: If binary interfaces change, the major number should change. Colin Percival
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?43738D14.9030006>