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 14:16:37 -0500 (EST)
- Subject: Re: Pending packages status
- Reply-to: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Charles Wilson wrote:
> Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >>>>>:) 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 :}.
> >>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.
> Yep, IIRC it *was* Pavel's personal preference. It cetainly isn't mine.
> I agree with Max: packages should be uniquely identified, to avoid
> confusion *during the prerelease phase*. Imagine:
> "Bob, there's a proplem with your foo-1.3.2-1 package"
> "That's fixed in the third release of foo-1.3.2-1"
> "Wait, Bob, I thought I was using the third release. Are you sure?"
> "Nope, you're right -- it's the *fourth* release that fixes the problem.
> Here's the package md5sum..."
> "Um, bob, I just downloaded foo-1.3.2-1 and it has md5sum xxxx. Is that
> newer, or older than the mythical fourth release?"
> "Yeah, sorry about that. I gave you the md5sum of the fourth
> pre-release. I expected that you would simply compare it to the md5sum
> of the package you've been complaining about (#3 ?). However, you can't
> download the #3 nor #4 prereleases anymore. We're up to the sixth
> pre-release, and THAT is what you just downloaded..."
> This is especially true in my case, since for autotool releases I tend
> to put them up on my website in setup-compatible form prior even to
> "test:" releases on the cygwin mirrors. I *need* to keep pre-release
> and pre-test versions unique if there have been any changes in them. Or
> I'll hork off my testers...
> As far as chris's comments go, he is right that we haven't yet had too
> many problems -- because most pre-release packages have not been
> "setup-installable". Thus, no problems (except for communication issues,
> as described above).
> I expect that as the cygwin userbase grows(*) that both of these
> conditions will change. (*) And recent evidence on the mailing list
> suggests that the cygwin userbase IS growing.
IIRC, there was a suggestion of giving pre-release packages -0.* release
numbers, and switching to -1 for the initial release...
|\ _,,,---,,_ 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!