> As the other other proposals which want to go to a.b.c.d or a.b.c.d.e
> version numbers; that's just getting crazy.  Ask anyone whose been
> invovled in support for products with such numbers (HP-UX, Oracle) and
> they'll most likely concur :)
I've supported Oracle, NetView, Solaris, AIX, and other large programs over
the years and I have found that three or four levels of version has helped
make system and patch administration an easy matter. 
My personal perference is to do the 1.6.[A-Z].[whatever] for a -current 
mainline and have a 1.6.N.N for stable maintenance releases and patches. With
this method, one could place the security fixes as patches and roll them up
with stablization work to create maintenance releases of 1.6.[number]

As others have said, sending out security fixes would be a matter of saying 
"go get 1.6.1.2" to fix the sendmail bug of the week as an example.

This scheme perserves the current sys/param.h information because it does have
enough room to accomodate such fixes and make tracking -current a simple
matter of following the lettered drops.

As an aside, have such suggestions like this and having the install sets in
package format been shot down already in previous discussions or is this a
new idea? I ask this because I've thought about helping out by packaging 
systems and patches.
-Andy Wallis