2.0
(assorted accompanying package versions according to Changes file)
xemacs 19.13 compiled on my system May 7th, probably under the current
libc, 5.3.12.
Was running with gpm in console mode (latest gnus doesn't seem to work
with GNU emacs very well).
I'm a bit surprised we went from a ``stable'' libc 5.2.*, to
``experimental'' 5.3.*, to ``experimental'' 5.4.* when really we
should be stabalizing everything right about now. Is the 5.4.* series
going to end up being the one we should all use with the latest Linux
2.0 kernel?
We really do need better version dependency trees, I agree with that
request very largely. This is everyone's responsibility: you must put
it in the release notes of your package a whole list of "this requires
at least x and at most y of package z" for every package dependency,
and another "package c version d requires at least version a and at
most version b of this package, but version e of package c requires at
least version f of this package, which also requires version w of
package n to be compiled before installing package o but deleted after
installing package p, according to the instructions within the release
notes to package m version g" or whatever is the truth for every
package that depends on your package. Making a machine-readable file
in some standard format that some parsing program that admin's can use
would be superb.
Because, quite frankly, I want the higher security of 5.3.12, but also
want to follow the stabilization track that will eventually go into
setups centered around 2.0 .... (to think, most of you will know what
I mean by those version #s without even mentioning what package I'm
talking about. tsk.)
Alright, so these last three paragraphs are just about distribution
issues; perhaps I'll wait for a solid Linux 2.0 distribution. But,
doing everything Documentation/Changes says is so reliable, that I
thought that that was the way it was supposed to be done ... :) and
get annoyed by the occasional bugs that do seem to squiggle their way
in anyway.