This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the Cygwin project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Pending packages status

On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 02:53:53PM -0000, Max Bowsher wrote:
>Pavel Tsekov wrote:
>> On 6 Mar 2003, Robert Collins wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 22:00, Pavel Tsekov wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, Daniel B??wetter wrote:
>>>>> Pavel Tsekov wrote:
>>>>>> No. You should not touch this number until the first release of
>>>>>> your package is out. Please, rename the package files.
>>>>> As you wish. I changed all occurences back to 1, the urls of the
>>>>> packages remain as follows:
>>>> :) It is not my personal preference, though it may seem like it is.
>>> Ah, remembering the recent discussions, I think it *is* exactly your
>>> preference :}.
>> Ok, I've realized that I made a mistake after I posted my reply.
>> Anyway, here is what I suggest - if the group opinion is that what I
>> do is really unnecessary and I do it just to make myself comfortable
>> or something
>> like this, than I'll stop requesting package maintainers to use -1.
>Personally, I don't see why the 1st release of a package need be -1, and I
>think that, in abstract, a version number should uniqely identify a version.
>On the other hand, I don't remember any confusion caused by the current

I don't have strong feelings about this other than that I think it would
be odd for the first release of a pacakge to be bushwa-1.10-15 and, given
some of the packaging discussions here, that is entirely possible.  I like
being able to look at an announcement and figuring out from the subject
if this is a recent release or not.

Given that we haven't had any problems with starting out at 1, I think
we should continue to work that way.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]