Re: Counter-ITP of doxygen (was: Re: Please upload: doxygen-1.4.2_20050410-1 (n'th take))
Christopher Faylor wrote: Otherwise, MaxB has disqualified himself from doxygen package maintainership, I would to appeal this, please, because I do not believe it is fair to censure me for a misunderstanding that I have explained and apologized for. The fact that a few words of mild intention can be misinterpreted and seed an accidental high tension mess has been amply well demonstrated on the cygwin list recently, in the CGF/GRVS thread. Max.
Re: Counter-ITP of doxygen (was: Re: Please upload: doxygen-1.4.2_20050410-1 (n'th take))
Max, no - you have not disqualified yourself in my eyes. And therefore, you should be the new doxygen owner/maintainer if you want it that badly. I also think that we should put this issue finally to rest, stop pouting and get on with life! greets, H. Max Bowsher wrote: Christopher Faylor wrote: Otherwise, MaxB has disqualified himself from doxygen package maintainership, I would to appeal this, please, because I do not believe it is fair to censure me for a misunderstanding that I have explained and apologized for. The fact that a few words of mild intention can be misinterpreted and seed an accidental high tension mess has been amply well demonstrated on the cygwin list recently, in the CGF/GRVS thread. Max.
Re: Counter-ITP of doxygen (was: Re: Please upload: doxygen-1.4.2_20050410-1 (n'th take))
On May 3 13:02, Max Bowsher wrote: Christopher Faylor wrote: The fact that a few words of mild intention can be misinterpreted and seed an accidental high tension mess has been amply well demonstrated on the cygwin list recently, in the CGF/GRVS thread. So you're comparing your specific situation with Gary's years long history of adding useless comments to cgf's postings in the Cygwin ML? I don't think that's the same and I don't think that's a convincing argument at all. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com Red Hat, Inc.
Re: Counter-ITP of doxygen (was: Re: Please upload: doxygen-1.4.2_20050410-1 (n'th take))
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 04:51:46PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: On May 3 13:02, Max Bowsher wrote: Christopher Faylor wrote: The fact that a few words of mild intention can be misinterpreted and seed an accidental high tension mess has been amply well demonstrated on the cygwin list recently, in the CGF/GRVS thread. So you're comparing your specific situation with Gary's years long history of adding useless comments to cgf's postings in the Cygwin ML? I don't think that's the same and I don't think that's a convincing argument at all. Big ditto, but any further discussion on this should go to cygwin-talk. It's certainly not valid here. Puzzling analogies aside, if maxb wants to be the new doxygen maintainer, I'll withdraw my objections. cgf
Re: Counter-ITP of doxygen (was: Re: Please upload: doxygen-1.4.2_20050410-1 (n'th take))
Corinna Vinschen wrote: On May 3 13:02, Max Bowsher wrote: Christopher Faylor wrote: The fact that a few words of mild intention can be misinterpreted and seed an accidental high tension mess has been amply well demonstrated on the cygwin list recently, in the CGF/GRVS thread. So you're comparing your specific situation with Gary's years long history of adding useless comments to cgf's postings in the Cygwin ML? I don't think that's the same and I don't think that's a convincing argument at all.= I was not aware of the history you refer to (I've been skimming subjects and reading only selected threads on the cygwin ml for a long time now), and was just using it as an isolated example of messages being interpreted in a more inflammatory tone than they were intended, reaching quite drastic end results. Max.
RE: Counter-ITP of doxygen (was: Re: Please upload: doxygen-1.4.2_20050410-1 (n'th take))
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Corinna Vinschen Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 9:52 AM To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com Subject: Re: Counter-ITP of doxygen (was: Re: Please upload: doxygen-1.4.2_20050410-1 (n'th take)) On May 3 13:02, Max Bowsher wrote: Christopher Faylor wrote: The fact that a few words of mild intention can be misinterpreted and seed an accidental high tension mess has been amply well demonstrated on the cygwin list recently, in the CGF/GRVS thread. So you're comparing your specific situation with Gary's years long history of adding useless comments to cgf's postings in the Cygwin ML? Ahem, yeah, let's make that: ...Gary's years long history of taking Chris to task for his years-long history of uncalled-for snotty comments. Surprised Chris himself didn't keep you honest there. -- Gary R. Van Sickle
RE: Counter-ITP of doxygen (was: Re: Please upload: doxygen-1.4.2_20050410-1 (n'th take))
[snip] So you're comparing your specific situation with Gary's years long history of adding useless comments to cgf's postings in the Cygwin ML? Ahem, yeah, let's make that: ...Gary's years long history of taking Chris to task for his years-long history of uncalled-for snotty comments. Surprised Chris himself didn't keep you honest there. Enough! :-) I held that thread up as an example of a misunderstanding creating a mess. Let's agree that misunderstandings are unfortunate, and not spread the mess around! Max. I could not agree more, Max. Misunderstandings are indeed unfortunate. Misrepresentations are something else entirely. FWIW, I fully support your stance that your unilaterally-imposed disqualification was unwarranted. At the same time, it's not difficult to understand Hans' consternation and reaction to the situation. Doxygen is a very useful package, and it would be sad for the Cygwin immune system to reject its inclusion on the basis that somebody did too much work. -- Gary R. Van Sickle
Re: Counter-ITP of doxygen (was: Re: Please upload: doxygen-1.4.2_20050410-1 (n'th take))
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 11:53:44AM -0500, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: -Original Message- From: cygwin-apps-owner GROUPIE cygwin KOOK com [mailto:cygwin-apps-owner GROUPIE cygwin KOOK com] On Behalf Of Corinna Vinschen Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 9:52 AM To: cygwin-apps GROUPIE cygwin KOOK com Subject: Re: Counter-ITP of doxygen (was: Re: Please upload: doxygen-1.4.2_20050410-1 (n'th take)) On May 3 13:02, Max Bowsher wrote: Christopher Faylor wrote: The fact that a few words of mild intention can be misinterpreted and seed an accidental high tension mess has been amply well demonstrated on the cygwin list recently, in the CGF/GRVS thread. So you're comparing your specific situation with Gary's years long history of adding useless comments to cgf's postings in the Cygwin ML? Ahem, yeah, let's make that: ...Gary's years long history of taking Chris to task for his years-long history of uncalled-for snotty comments. Surprised Chris himself didn't keep you honest there. http://cygwin.com/acronyms/#PCYMTNQREAIYR And, again, further discussion in this vein should go to cygwin-talk, please. cgf
Re: Counter-ITP of doxygen (was: Re: Please upload: doxygen-1.4.2_20050410-1 (n'th take))
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 12:26:20PM -0500, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: FWIW, I fully support your stance that your unilaterally-imposed disqualification was unwarranted. At the same time, it's not difficult to understand Hans' consternation and reaction to the situation. Doxygen is a very useful package, and it would be sad for the Cygwin immune system to reject its inclusion on the basis that somebody did too much work. I think this subject is closed: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2005-05/msg00011.html It's now time to move on to the actual work of getting the new version of doxygen into the cygwin release. cgf
Re: Counter-ITP of doxygen (was: Re: Please upload: doxygen-1.4.2_20050410-1 (n'th take))
On May 3 12:26, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: FWIW, I fully support your stance that your unilaterally-imposed disqualification was unwarranted. At the same time, it's not difficult to understand Hans' consternation and reaction to the situation. Doxygen is a very useful package, and it would be sad for the Cygwin immune system to reject its inclusion on the basis that somebody did too much work. As usual you're off the point. Anyway, please move over to cygwin-talk. Thanks, Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com Red Hat, Inc.
Re: Counter-ITP of doxygen (was: Re: Please upload: doxygen-1.4.2_20050410-1 (n'th take))
Christopher Faylor wrote: I've waited several days to respond to this because I wanted to make sure that I was in the proper emotional state and didn't just fire off a knee-jerk reaction. Ditto. Nevertheless, I remain appalled by this turn of events. I saw nothing in Hans' email which indicated that he's unwilling to be cooperative about packaging problems so I see no reason to pull the package from him. Hans is not the first person to have to go through a moderate amount of pain before getting the packaging right and if the biggest complaint of his source packaging is that it doesn't contain the cygwin README, then that is not a big deal. I don't know how to resolve this situation but I do know for sure that neither Corinna nor I are going to reward someone by making them a package maintainer after essentially publicly insulting another volunteer. I feel a bit annoyed by the above, since I did not intentionally insult anyone. After multiple rounds of email dealing with a single, particularly visible, issue - version numbering - which is documented in the Package Contibutor's Guide, I took a more in-depth look at the packaging, and discovered that the source package did not contain everything necessary to recreate the binary package, it did not conform to either of the packaging schemas defined as acceptable by the Package Contributor's Guide, nor reasonably documented alternative, that it did not strip the binaries (required by the Package Contributor's Guide), and that the version number formats were still incorrect. Considering the difficulty involved in getting to that point, and realizing that fixing all of the above would amount to an almost complete rewrite of the packaging script - or, indeed, replacing it with the g-b-s - I concluded that this was not a review process that I could guide to a successful conclusion. There wasn't anyone else who was reviewing the later iterations of the packages, so I felt that if I was to simply back away, the package would left in an unapproved vacuum. Having involved myself with doxygen to the extent that I had by then, I felt obligated to seek a successful conclusion if in any way I could, and saw packaging doxygen myself as s possible route. I recognized that there was a certain potential for emotional upset, and after spending a couple of days wondering how best to phrase things to mitigate that potential, I opted for a simple, brief, matter-of-fact presentation. Evidently, that misfired quite spectacularly. At no point did I intend or imply any disparagement towards Hans. I'll try to avoid sensitive conversations in the future, since I seem to be somewhat inept at translating my intentions into text. Max.
Re: Counter-ITP of doxygen (was: Re: Please upload: doxygen-1.4.2_20050410-1 (n'th take))
On Apr 25 14:09, Christopher Faylor wrote: On Sat, Apr 23, 2005 at 12:35:19AM +0100, Max Bowsher wrote: Accordingly, I hereby ITP doxygen myself: I've waited several days to respond to this because I wanted to make sure that I was in the proper emotional state and didn't just fire off a knee-jerk reaction. Nevertheless, I remain appalled by this turn of events. I saw nothing in Hans' email which indicated that he's unwilling to be cooperative about packaging problems so I see no reason to pull the package from him. Hans is not the first person to have to go through a moderate amount of pain before getting the packaging right and if the biggest complaint of his source packaging is that it doesn't contain the cygwin README, then that is not a big deal. I don't know how to resolve this situation but I do know for sure that neither Corinna nor I are going to reward someone by making them a package maintainer after essentially publicly insulting another volunteer. Hans, this is still yours if you want it. Otherwise, MaxB has disqualified himself from doxygen package maintainership, so I guess we're in the market for a maintainer again. Hans' binary package looks ok to me. The source package might have some minor problems but I'd be dead surprised if not any of my packages would have problems either. I don't quite understand all that hype around the source packages anyway. The source package provides the sources which have been used to build the binary package. That's all, no need to create a science from it. A minor problem in the source file is certainly no reason to kick somebody's a**. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com Red Hat, Inc.
Re: Counter-ITP of doxygen (was: Re: Please upload: doxygen-1.4.2_20050410-1 (n'th take))
Chris, Corinna Max, thanks but no thanks. I had a real rough start with this, which utterly discouraged me and dampened my enthusiasm to maintain anything at this time considerably! So please consider doxygen and bash to be up again for grabs! As far as I am concerned, can't you just let Max be doxygen maintainer if he still wants to? The least I want is to seed trouble among the cygwin core team and long-time maintainers such as Max. H. Christopher Faylor wrote: On Sat, Apr 23, 2005 at 12:35:19AM +0100, Max Bowsher wrote: Hans W. Horn wrote: Alright, Max Bowsher wrote: No, still wrong. You didn't read what I said carefully enough. You *need* to understand: Filenames are expected to be EXACTLY: NAME-VERSION-RELEASE.tar.bz2 NAME-VERSION-RELEASE-src.tar.bz2 I guess I never appreciated the subtle naming convention used for cygwin packages. Honestly, my impression was that names go all over the map. Fixed (I think). +++ doxygen_1.4.2-20050410/doc/language.doc +++ doxygen_1.4.2-20050410/doc/translator_report.txt +++ doxygen_1.4.2-20050410/examples/example.tag These files are touched during a 'make install_docs'. Excluded offending diffs from patch. Having got the superficial naming problems out of the way, I took a closer look at the source packaging. There were many issues - the most serious being that the source package did not even contain the Cygwin specific readme at all - and many minor deficiencies related to using a home-grown build script, rather than the tried-and-true cygwin template. I am sorry, but the conclusion I came to was that it would be less effort for me to produce my own packages of doxygen, based on the the generic-build-script, than to assist in getting these packages up to a good-to-go status. Accordingly, I hereby ITP doxygen myself: Setup.exe installation site: http://unicorn.robinson.cam.ac.uk/~mob22/cygdoxygen/ I've waited several days to respond to this because I wanted to make sure that I was in the proper emotional state and didn't just fire off a knee-jerk reaction. Nevertheless, I remain appalled by this turn of events. I saw nothing in Hans' email which indicated that he's unwilling to be cooperative about packaging problems so I see no reason to pull the package from him. Hans is not the first person to have to go through a moderate amount of pain before getting the packaging right and if the biggest complaint of his source packaging is that it doesn't contain the cygwin README, then that is not a big deal. I don't know how to resolve this situation but I do know for sure that neither Corinna nor I are going to reward someone by making them a package maintainer after essentially publicly insulting another volunteer. Hans, this is still yours if you want it. Otherwise, MaxB has disqualified himself from doxygen package maintainership, so I guess we're in the market for a maintainer again. cgf
Re: Counter-ITP of doxygen (was: Re: Please upload: doxygen-1.4.2_20050410-1 (n'th take))
On Sat, Apr 23, 2005 at 12:35:19AM +0100, Max Bowsher wrote: Hans W. Horn wrote: Alright, Max Bowsher wrote: No, still wrong. You didn't read what I said carefully enough. You *need* to understand: Filenames are expected to be EXACTLY: NAME-VERSION-RELEASE.tar.bz2 NAME-VERSION-RELEASE-src.tar.bz2 I guess I never appreciated the subtle naming convention used for cygwin packages. Honestly, my impression was that names go all over the map. Fixed (I think). +++ doxygen_1.4.2-20050410/doc/language.doc +++ doxygen_1.4.2-20050410/doc/translator_report.txt +++ doxygen_1.4.2-20050410/examples/example.tag These files are touched during a 'make install_docs'. Excluded offending diffs from patch. Having got the superficial naming problems out of the way, I took a closer look at the source packaging. There were many issues - the most serious being that the source package did not even contain the Cygwin specific readme at all - and many minor deficiencies related to using a home-grown build script, rather than the tried-and-true cygwin template. I am sorry, but the conclusion I came to was that it would be less effort for me to produce my own packages of doxygen, based on the the generic-build-script, than to assist in getting these packages up to a good-to-go status. Accordingly, I hereby ITP doxygen myself: Setup.exe installation site: http://unicorn.robinson.cam.ac.uk/~mob22/cygdoxygen/ I've waited several days to respond to this because I wanted to make sure that I was in the proper emotional state and didn't just fire off a knee-jerk reaction. Nevertheless, I remain appalled by this turn of events. I saw nothing in Hans' email which indicated that he's unwilling to be cooperative about packaging problems so I see no reason to pull the package from him. Hans is not the first person to have to go through a moderate amount of pain before getting the packaging right and if the biggest complaint of his source packaging is that it doesn't contain the cygwin README, then that is not a big deal. I don't know how to resolve this situation but I do know for sure that neither Corinna nor I are going to reward someone by making them a package maintainer after essentially publicly insulting another volunteer. Hans, this is still yours if you want it. Otherwise, MaxB has disqualified himself from doxygen package maintainership, so I guess we're in the market for a maintainer again. cgf
Counter-ITP of doxygen (was: Re: Please upload: doxygen-1.4.2_20050410-1 (n'th take))
Hans W. Horn wrote: Alright, Max Bowsher wrote: No, still wrong. You didn't read what I said carefully enough. You *need* to understand: Filenames are expected to be EXACTLY: NAME-VERSION-RELEASE.tar.bz2 NAME-VERSION-RELEASE-src.tar.bz2 I guess I never appreciated the subtle naming convention used for cygwin packages. Honestly, my impression was that names go all over the map. Fixed (I think). +++ doxygen_1.4.2-20050410/doc/language.doc +++ doxygen_1.4.2-20050410/doc/translator_report.txt +++ doxygen_1.4.2-20050410/examples/example.tag These files are touched during a 'make install_docs'. Excluded offending diffs from patch. Having got the superficial naming problems out of the way, I took a closer look at the source packaging. There were many issues - the most serious being that the source package did not even contain the Cygwin specific readme at all - and many minor deficiencies related to using a home-grown build script, rather than the tried-and-true cygwin template. I am sorry, but the conclusion I came to was that it would be less effort for me to produce my own packages of doxygen, based on the the generic-build-script, than to assist in getting these packages up to a good-to-go status. Accordingly, I hereby ITP doxygen myself: Setup.exe installation site: http://unicorn.robinson.cam.ac.uk/~mob22/cygdoxygen/ Max.
Re: Counter-ITP of doxygen (was: Re: Please upload: doxygen-1.4.2_20050410-1 (n'th take))
Hans W. Horn wrote: Max Bowsher wrote: ... Having got the superficial naming problems out of the way, I took a closer look at the source packaging. There were many issues - the most serious being that the source package did not even contain the Cygwin specific readme at all - and hear - hear (you didn't look, did you?)! Yes, I did. And just to be sure, I used grep. It was not there. many minor deficiencies related to using a home-grown build script, rather than the tried-and-true cygwin template. typical NIH syndrom! NIH? I am sorry, but the conclusion I came to was that it would be less effort for me to produce my own packages of doxygen, based on the the generic-build-script, than to assist in getting these packages up to a good-to-go status. You're so full of it! But, honestly, I saw this coming! I'd say - why don't you just shove it! And seriously, I really can't remember why I even thought it would be a good thing to offer my services to maintain anything for the cygwin crowd! That memory has gotten somewhat hazy! Bye now! All Cygwin package maintainers work to the set of guidelines that the project has designed for itself, and which are posted on the website. If you desire to help, but lack the time or inclination to meet the guidelines the project has defined for itself, then you will discover that whilst your desire to help is appreciated, you actual offerings may not actually be helpful to the project. This is a simple fact. If it angers you... there is nothing I can do about that. Max.
Re: Counter-ITP of doxygen (was: Re: Please upload: doxygen-1.4.2_20050410-1 (n'th take))
Max Bowsher wrote: Hans W. Horn wrote: Max Bowsher wrote: ... Having got the superficial naming problems out of the way, I took a closer look at the source packaging. Superficial? In your earlier complaints you made it sound as if those naming issues were of utmost importance! There were many issues - the most serious being that the source package did not even contain the Cygwin specific readme at all - and... hear - hear (you didn't look, did you?)! Yes, I did. And just to be sure, I used grep. It was not there. Interesting! You did a grep on a compressed tarball? Or on a directory tree? Quite unconventional. I would use 'find'. As in: cd /usr find ./ -name doxygen*README -print ./share/doc/Cygwin/doxygen-1.4.2_20050410-1.README many minor deficiencies related to using a home-grown build script, rather than the tried-and-true cygwin template. Yup! Guilty as charged! typical NIH syndrom! NIH? Not Invented Here. Probably doesn't count. Has no cygwin trademark! I am sorry, but the conclusion I came to was that it would be less effort for me to produce my own packages of doxygen, based on the the generic-build-script, than to assist in getting these packages up to a good-to-go status. As I see it: the last version of the package I have submitted was as much or little conformant to the cygwin guidelines as the package it was meant to supercede, or 50% of all the other cygwin packages on the market today. All Cygwin package maintainers work to the set of guidelines that the project has designed for itself, and which are posted on the website. If you desire to help, but lack the time or inclination to meet the guidelines the project has defined for itself, ... and which are being modified on the fly, see http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2005-04/msg00063.html ...then you will discover that whilst your desire to help is appreciated ... Are you sure you mean that? ..., you actual offerings may not actually be helpful to the project. This is a simple fact. If it angers you... there is nothing I can do about that. I'm sure you wouldn't! But that's not what angers me; it is rather arrogance and pretence that pushes my button. In any case : this is not a competition for maintainership - you may keep it all for yourself! And I'm out for good!
Re: Counter-ITP of doxygen (was: Re: Please upload: doxygen-1.4.2_20050410-1 (n'th take))
Max Bowsher wrote: ... Having got the superficial naming problems out of the way, I took a closer look at the source packaging. There were many issues - the most serious being that the source package did not even contain the Cygwin specific readme at all - and hear - hear (you didn't look, did you?)! many minor deficiencies related to using a home-grown build script, rather than the tried-and-true cygwin template. typical NIH syndrom! I am sorry, but the conclusion I came to was that it would be less effort for me to produce my own packages of doxygen, based on the the generic-build-script, than to assist in getting these packages up to a good-to-go status. You're so full of it! But, honestly, I saw this coming! I'd say - why don't you just shove it! And seriously, I really can't remember why I even thought it would be a good thing to offer my services to maintain anything for the cygwin crowd! That memory has gotten somewhat hazy! Bye now! H.
Please upload: doxygen-1.4.2_20050410-1 (n'th take)
Alright, Max Bowsher wrote: No, still wrong. You didn't read what I said carefully enough. You *need* to understand: Filenames are expected to be EXACTLY: NAME-VERSION-RELEASE.tar.bz2 NAME-VERSION-RELEASE-src.tar.bz2 I guess I never appreciated the subtle naming convention used for cygwin packages. Honestly, my impression was that names go all over the map. Fixed (I think). +++ doxygen_1.4.2-20050410/doc/language.doc +++ doxygen_1.4.2-20050410/doc/translator_report.txt +++ doxygen_1.4.2-20050410/examples/example.tag These files are touched during a 'make install_docs'. Excluded offending diffs from patch. Same url (http://www.smithii.com/files/cygwin/hans/): -rw-r--r-- 1 32237 ross 2273644 Apr 19 11:58 doxygen-1.4.2_20050410-1-src.tar.bz2 -rw-r--r-- 1 32237 ross 1999837 Apr 19 11:58 doxygen-1.4.2_20050410-1.tar.bz2 -rw-r--r-- 1 32237 ross 183 Apr 19 11:58 md5.sum -rw-r--r-- 1 32237 ross 353 Apr 19 11:58 setup.hint H.
Re: Please upload: doxygen-1.4.2_20050410-1 (n'th take)
On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 10:30:12AM -0700, Hans W. Horn wrote: Max Bowsher wrote: No, still wrong. You didn't read what I said carefully enough. You *need* to understand: Filenames are expected to be EXACTLY: NAME-VERSION-RELEASE.tar.bz2 NAME-VERSION-RELEASE-src.tar.bz2 I guess I never appreciated the subtle naming convention used for cygwin packages. Honestly, my impression was that names go all over the map. NAME-VERSION-RELEASE is subtle? That's interesting. cgf
Re: Please upload: doxygen-1.4.2_20050410-1 (n'th take)
It's only subtle, until you've digested that in this notation RELEASE is a cygwin version attribute and VERSION is an upstream version attribute (which on its own may already use a similar naming convention, such as doxygen-1.4.2-20050410). Confused the hell out of me! H. Christopher Faylor wrote: On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 10:30:12AM -0700, Hans W. Horn wrote: Max Bowsher wrote: No, still wrong. You didn't read what I said carefully enough. You *need* to understand: Filenames are expected to be EXACTLY: NAME-VERSION-RELEASE.tar.bz2 NAME-VERSION-RELEASE-src.tar.bz2 I guess I never appreciated the subtle naming convention used for cygwin packages. Honestly, my impression was that names go all over the map. NAME-VERSION-RELEASE is subtle? That's interesting. cgf
Re: Please upload: doxygen-1.4.2_20050410-1 (n'th take)
On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 10:42:04AM -0700, Hans W. Horn wrote: It's only subtle, until you've digested that in this notation RELEASE is a cygwin version attribute and VERSION is an upstream version attribute (which on its own may already use a similar naming convention, such as doxygen-1.4.2-20050410). Confused the hell out of me! http://cygwin.com/setup.html#naming seems pretty clear to me. Anyway, doxygen-1.4.2-20050410 is not using a similar naming convention. It is a version number with a dash in it. The - is not a release and it should be pretty clear that it can't be a cygwin release given the above URL. cgf
