Re: Documentation/Changes update for 2.0.3x
Thu, 15 May 1997 00:15:57 +0000 (GMT)

On 14 May, Jon Lewis muttered something vague about:
> On Wed, 14 May 1997 wrote:
>> [Besides: what is the function of these `Changes'?
> I guess that's really the question.
>> To tell us what the most recent version of some software is?
>> I don't think so. It should tell us what the oldest version
>> of the software is that still will work without problems
>> with this new kernel.]
> Personally, I like to have the very latest non-broken version, rather than
> the oldest one that still works. If I'm going to bother to go get the
> source and compile stuff, getting the very latest usable version hopefully
> delays having to repeat that excercise.

Fine for you. Changes, however, at least when I started it, was
intended to alleviate the flood of "top segfaults" posts that were
coming with 1.3.x and newbies who tend not to stay on top of current
software. I try to just provide the minimum levels that you should have
before reporting that the kernel's buggy. Obviously, if you want to
run the latest software, that's great. You can still use the file to
get an idea of where the source for the various programs are
located.... I'm just letting people know that, for example, they have
to have a recent mount if they want to use the new NFS stuff, and not
to complain about it not working until they do so.

I changed to doing things this way because too many people thought I
was saying you *had* to upgrade just for the kernel to work back when I
tried to keep the Changes file listing the very latest release, not
just the latest release that is needed for functionality.


Chris Ricker