On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 07:23:45AM +0100, David Sastre wrote: >On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 07:57:23PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 08:34:03PM +0100, David Sastre wrote: >> >OK. Please bump the cygwin package release number when you do that. >> Why bump the package release on something that has never been released? >> I think it makes sense that the first release should be -1. > >That's what I understand from: > >2.?Do increase the version number no matter what (if upstream >version didn't change, bump the Cygwin release number): even if the >package was bad, even if it was removed from the server for >a security issue, even if has only been discussed in mailing >list and never uploaded: it costs nothing and avoids confusion >in both setup.exe and people mind.
The package was never on the server, i.e., it was never released. If a package ever touches cygwin.com then, yes, you have to bump the version any time you make any change no matter how tiny. I don't care if the package is released with -57 release number but I don't want it to get into the common knowledge pool that it is a requirement because it isn't. cgf