On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 02:26:29AM +0100, Lapo Luchini wrote: >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?
I'd like to hear what other people (particularly Corinna) think before we remove the section. >> 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? I don't see any reason to wait. The more you wait, the more you stand the chance of forgetting. cgf