[HEADSUP] Let's start a Cygwin 1.7 release area

Corinna Vinschen corinna-cygwin@cygwin.com
Tue Apr 8 21:46:00 GMT 2008


On Apr  8 14:16, Brian Dessent wrote:
> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> 
> > Why, we could always name the next versions "cygwin-newer",
> > "cygwin-evenmorenew", "cygwin-newerthannew" and
> > "cygwin-reallyreallynew-imeanit".
> > 
> > > How about cygwinng?
> > 
> > With a dash?  cygwin-ng?  Like syslog-ng.  I was going to suggest this
> > too, but I didn't want to copy the naming too bluntly.  I guess we
> > should use "cygwin-notasnewbutstillnewenough".  I'm still more leaning
> > towards cygwin-2008.  You shouldn't have suggested the name.  It's all
> > your fault.
> 
> Okay, so, several years ago setup.exe HEAD was modified to look for
> "release" and "release_legacy" as the base dirname for packages
> depending on whether it was running on 9x/ME or NT/2k/etc.  I understand

Sorry, but I didn't remember that.  Why didn't you just tell us?

How do you differ the setup.ini files if you only have different release
subdirs?  setup_legacy.ini?

> that having Cygwin 1.7 playground is a different concept, but why should
> it be handled differently?  Why not "release_1.7"?  This is all
> temporary anyway IIUC, since it's just for testing packages built with
> 1.7, which will eventually all be moved over into just plain "release"
> anyway, right?  If this is *not* temporary then how does it fit into the
> idea of having a legacy 9x/ME area?

When I came up with that a couple of days ago, I thought it might be bad
to rename the current release area for 1.5 so that it keeps working as
is and downloading from the 1.7 release area requires to make the
conscience choice to use the 1.7 setup.  If we can do this with a
release-1.7 plus a setup-1.7.ini file, than that's ok for me, too.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat



More information about the Cygwin-apps mailing list