On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 11:52:43PM -0500, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
Charles Wilson wrote:
If we really -- really and truly, actually, honest-to-god
swear-on-the-bible -- intend to release cygwin-1.7 real soon now (and
not Real Soon Now(tm) -- then by all means, let's go to package
freeze.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Christopher Faylor wrote:
I'm not sure if this is what you're asking but I was talking about a
package freeze for 1.5, not 1.7.
As long we won't be expected to support the 1.5 packages for too much
longer, that's fine with me.
Yaakov
-BEGIN
Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 02:02:00PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
Well, that's really off-point, because...
No, actually it's not.
But, a digression...
you haven't bothered to include a Thank you or I'm sorry to
have bothered you.
You're right. Thank you. Sorry
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Charles Wilson wrote:
If we really -- really and truly, actually, honest-to-god
swear-on-the-bible -- intend to release cygwin-1.7 real soon now (and
not Real Soon Now(tm) -- then by all means, let's go to package
freeze. (Notwithstanding
[Redirected to cygwin-apps]
On Mar 22 17:39, Charles Wilson wrote:
Christopher Faylor wrote:
Since release-2 isn't supposed to have obsolete stuff in it can't we
just remove this directory entirely?
No.
How do you propose to accomodate people -- esp. testers who have
accepted
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Isn't it a good time to split the release and release-2 areas into
two separate directories? Now that many maintainers create separate
packages for 1.5 and 1.7, updating 1.5 and 1.7 directories and always
having to
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 08:29:33AM -0500, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Isn't it a good time to split the release and release-2 areas into two
separate directories? Now that many maintainers create separate
packages for 1.5 and 1.7, updating 1.5 and 1.7 directories and always
On Mar 23 10:18, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 08:29:33AM -0500, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Isn't it a good time to split the release and release-2 areas into two
separate directories? Now that many maintainers create separate
packages for 1.5 and
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 03:33:26PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Mar 23 10:18, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 08:29:33AM -0500, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Isn't it a good time to split the release and release-2 areas into two
separate directories? Now
On Mar 23 10:52, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 03:33:26PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Mar 23 10:18, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 08:29:33AM -0500, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Isn't it a good time to split the release and
Christopher Faylor wrote:
Stop obsoleting packages and adding major new package releases. In
fact, I'd say stop anything but serious bugfixes or trivial upgrades to
1.5 packages at this point.
I was considering doing one final release for 1.5 so they can have default
shared-libgcc and
Christopher Faylor wrote:
I've just done this for lzma to prove that it works and it does.
Great! I'll make that change for each of the packages I've already
forked for cygwin-1.7
But then, I don't think it makes a lot of sense to be doing much package
reorganization in 1.5 since it is
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 02:02:00PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
Christopher Faylor wrote:
I've just done this for lzma to prove that it works and it does.
Great! I'll make that change for each of the packages I've already
forked for cygwin-1.7
Too bad you couldn't just stop there.
But then, I
Ken Brown said:
Has this been taken care of? I'm seeing 4.32.7-2 as the current version of
lzma when I run setup-1.7.exe rather than 4.32.7-3.
Interesting. I just looked at the setup.hint on sourceware (release-2
area):
category: _obsolete
requires: xz
sdesc: removed package
ldesc:
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 03:25:31PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
Ken Brown said:
Has this been taken care of? I'm seeing 4.32.7-2 as the current version of
lzma when I run setup-1.7.exe rather than 4.32.7-3.
Interesting. I just looked at the setup.hint on sourceware (release-2
area):
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 05:03:41PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
And, in fact, there was no lzma-4.32.7-3*tar.bz2 files in the lzma
^
release-2
directory. Apparently they
Christopher Faylor wrote:
I don't understand how you'd posit this as an upset bug if upset is
working correctly for the release directory. That implies a difference
between the two directories, not an upset bug.
I didn't notice the missing -3 version, because I didn't expect it to be
there.
17 matches
Mail list logo
