This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Pending packages status
- From: Igor Pechtchanski <pechtcha at cs dot nyu dot edu>
- To: Charles Wilson <cwilson at ece dot gatech dot edu>
- Cc: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
- Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:42:09 -0500 (EST)
- Subject: Re: Pending packages status
- Reply-to: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Charles Wilson wrote:
> Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> > IIRC, there was a suggestion of giving pre-release packages -0.* release
> > numbers, and switching to -1 for the initial release...
> Now, I can *live* with that (but not especially *like* it). What about
> pre-test updated versions (after a package has been officially launched
> and is part of the dist)? [Also, 'REL = 0.x' might break the generic
> package build script; I'm not sure]
> Worse, my pretest versions of libtool are based on *different* CVS
> snapshots. So they differ not only in REL, but also in VER, from the
> packages on the cygwin mirrors.
Umm, Chuck, the above suggestion was intended only for different
pre-releases of the package with the *same* VER number. If you have
different VER numbers, you already have a way of distinguishing various
pre-releases, and no need to do anything extra to that end.
> Yes, there are ways around even THAT. Let VER change as it must, but
> make sure that all pre-test RELs are 0.x. Then bump to -1,2,3,whatever
> when uploading to the cygwin mirrors.
> But that seems like an awful lot of trouble, simply because a few people
> prefer (a) initial "official" packages start at REL=1, and (b) official
> packages progress in monotonic, uniform REL #s with no gaps.
> IMO, that's simply insane -- no linux distribution does that. You might
> see foo-1.3.2-2 in rawhide, followed by -4, then -9, and then -11 shows
> up in the next official Red Hat. Nobody complains. And the post-release
> security fix for foo is -13, not -12. Big Freaking Deal.
> Oh, crap. Are we in another interminable packaging debate?
FWIW, I think the practice of naming the initial releases -1 is related to
the absense of release notes for packages in setup. If there were a way
to access the release notes (or the announcement, which should amount to
the same thing), it wouldn't matter what the release number is. This is
more than just a "so patch setup" issue, since there is no connection
currently between upset/setup and the announcements.
|\ _,,,---,,_ pechtcha at cs dot nyu dot edu
ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ igor at watson dot ibm dot com
|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Igor Pechtchanski
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow!
Oh, boy, virtual memory! Now I'm gonna make myself a really *big* RAMdisk!