This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-apps
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Question about clisp version naming
- From: Yaakov Selkowitz <yselkowitz at cygwin dot com>
- To: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
- Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 11:04:17 -0500
- Subject: Re: Question about clisp version naming
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <5500B536 dot 4050108 at cornell dot edu> <1426112433 dot 11504 dot 18 dot camel at cygwin dot com> <55017935 dot 20900 at cornell dot edu>
On Thu, 2015-03-12 at 07:32 -0400, Ken Brown wrote:
> On 3/11/2015 6:20 PM, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
> > On Wed, 2015-03-11 at 17:35 -0400, Ken Brown wrote:
> >> I've succeeded in making dynamic loading of modules work in clisp on
> >> Cygwin, and I'll be issuing a new release soon.
> >
> > Yeah!
> >
> >> My work was based on the tip of the upstream Mercurial repository, which
> >> shows a version number of 2.49+ and is at revision 15623. So I was
> >> thinking of using 2.49+hg15623 as the version number. Will upset be
> >> happy with that? Or is there some other standard way of assigning
> >> version numbers in cases like this?
> >
> > With setup now being stricter about versions wrt upgrading, we need to
> > be as well. Because this is a post-2.49 revision, it should be
> > VERSION=2.49 and RELEASE=2.YYYYMMDDhg15623 (since there was already a
> > -1).
>
> That's fine with me, but I just want to make sure that there's no typo
> in what you wrote. Are we really going to start having release numbers
> that aren't just integers?
We already started that with the Cygwin test prereleases.
--
Yaakov