Eric Blake wrote: > You may want to move step 4 prior to step 1, since you mention submitting > the proposed setup.hint online. Mhhh... that's a tough issue: for sure step 1 has a forward reference to step 4 regarding setup.hint (which is bad), but step 1 contains the most important info, and putting it at step 2 after a longish text about the Test-ness of packages seems to remove step 1 quite a bit of authority. Uhm. Any other comment or suggestion how to solve the issue? > Also, in the email, it is helpful if > you explicitly state which older versions to keep or delete from the > mirrors. Can "old" version be multiple or just a single one? (I'm assuming the latter, in version 2 I'm preparing right now)
Christopher Faylor wrote: > Yep. We increased the votes when we allowed packages that were already > in other distributions to slide in. Whoops, didn't remember that. > I've been meaning to mention this. The disk space limitations on the new > sourceware are pretty much nonexistent now - at least for a year or so. > I don't think there's any harm in keeping old versions around now unless > people think this is a bad idea in general. Should I remove that part, then? > should be sent as soon as possible after > the uploaded message has been sent to cygwin-apps. Does the old-times rule "give a few hours to allow the package spread to the mirrors" hold no more, then? Well, let's see how this version 2 fares: http://cyberx.lapo.it/~lapo/cygpackage.html Lapo