This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Pending packages status
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.
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?