On Aug 16 13:02, Jari Aalto wrote: > * Thu 2007-08-16 Dr Dr <Dr.Volker.Zell-QHcLZuEGTsvQT0dZR+AlfA AT > public.gmane.org> > * Message-Id: 828x8b97bp.fsf AT vzell-de.de.oracle.com > >>>>>> Jari Aalto writes: > > > > > Adopted package from Harold and updated to newest upstream release. > > > > Builds fine and packaging looks good. > > Thanks Volker, you're fast reviewer. > > > What's the reason for the version number change ? > > There orignal version was 1.00pre20 (explained in Cygwin/*.README), > which I changed to 1.99.20 for Cygwin. > > The change is purely pragmatic: my tools are for pure numbering > schemes and cannot cope exotic "pre", "a", "c", "alpha", "beta" or the > kind Debian uses: "~pre20", "+cvs2007..."
Sorry, but that looks wrong to me. You should rather change your tools instead of creating an artificial version numbering scheme for Cygwin with version numbers which have nothing to do with the upstream version. How are you planning to cope with upstream version updates? What are you going to do when the upstream maintainer releases a 1.01? Would you release it as Cygwin version 2.0? And, shouldn't the version be *at least* 1.00.20 instead of 1.99.20? Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat