This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-apps
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Bug in upset? [Was: Re: R: Problem [1.7]: link /bin/lzma -> xz]
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 03:33:26PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Mar 23 10:18, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 08:29:33AM -0500, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
>>>Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>>>Isn't it a good time to split the release and release-2 areas into two
>>>>separate directories? Now that many maintainers create separate
>>>>packages for 1.5 and 1.7, updating 1.5 and 1.7 directories and always
>>>>having to delete the 1.5 stuff from the 1.7 release-2 directory
>>>>afterwards is troublesome and bound to produce mistakes. And the union
>>>>of the two directories makes increasingly less sense.
>>>
>>>+1
>>
>>For my packages, I still want the convenience of the unionfs. [...]
>>IMO, we should be moving towards stabilization of the 1.5 package base
>>and the 1.7 Cygwin DLL code base. I don't see either of those
>>happening right now, though.
>
>I don't understand what you mean. What package stabilization has to be
>done in 1.5?
Stop obsoleting packages and adding major new package releases. In
fact, I'd say stop anything but serious bugfixes or trivial upgrades to
1.5 packages at this point.
>And the Cygwin DLL is quite stable now. I'm only fixing bugs and
>changing the wide char/multibyte
"wide char/multibyte" - that's a huge change to be adding to a product
which is supposed to be in beta. It's worth a separate beta all by
itself.
In fact, as I have previously stated, this extended 1.7 release should
have, IMO, been a series of 1.7.x releases where the base functionality
was laid in 1.7.0 and improvements showed up at a regular basis in 1.7.1,
1.7.2, etc. That mirrors the way that Linux does things and it's one of
the reasons why Cygwin adopted a similar versioning strategy.
cgf