Bug 348741
Summary: | Bash Version Inconsistencies | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4 | Reporter: | Chris Ward <cward> |
Component: | bash | Assignee: | Tomas Janousek <tjanouse> |
Status: | CLOSED WONTFIX | QA Contact: | Ben Levenson <benl> |
Severity: | high | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | low | ||
Version: | 4.5 | ||
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2007-11-13 16:15:49 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
Chris Ward
2007-10-23 13:37:38 UTC
Yeah. The version is not supposed to reflect the patchlevel of bash. It's just a package release number. I may consider putting the patchlevel to the Version field. Other distributions don't seem to do this with bash though (e.g. Debian), unlike with vim, for example. Thanks for the feedback. What will cause you to decide one way or the other, to add or not add the patchlevel to the version field? Opinions of people who I do/should respect (including myself) :) You can close this bug if you will not be acting on it. Please let me know. Closing because: - we may want to back out a patch some day (which would make the version not have any sense) - other distros don't use this versioning with bash - it's easier to leave it as it is :) |