Bug in upset? [Was: Re: R: Problem [1.7]: link /bin/lzma -> xz]

Corinna Vinschen corinna-cygwin@cygwin.com
Mon Mar 23 15:09:00 GMT 2009


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 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 delete the 1.5 stuff from the 1.7 release-2 directory
> >>>>afterwards is troublesome and bound to produce mistakes.  And the union
> >>>>of the two directories makes increasingly less sense.
> >>>
> >>>+1
> >>
> >>For my packages, I still want the convenience of the unionfs.  [...]
> >>IMO, we should be moving towards stabilization of the 1.5 package base
> >>and the 1.7 Cygwin DLL code base.  I don't see either of those
> >>happening right now, though.
> >
> >I don't understand what you mean.  What package stabilization has to be
> >done in 1.5?
> 
> 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.

Sure.  That's what we get practically automatically by splitting the
unionfs into two separate directories, plus asking maintainers to
concentrate on 1.7 from now on.

> >And the Cygwin DLL is quite stable now.  I'm only fixing bugs and
> >changing the wide char/multibyte
> 
> "wide char/multibyte" - that's a huge change to be adding to a product
> which is supposed to be in beta.  It's worth a separate beta all by
> itself.

I planned to have the wide char/multibyte stuff in 1.7 from the
beginning.  I expected more help with this to begin with, but
unfortunately I had to do it alone so it took more time than I had hoped
for.  When the newlib patch I created yesterday is approved, then that,
together with the accompanying cygwin patch which is waiting locally, is
the last big change in this area.

> In fact, as I have previously stated, this extended 1.7 release should
> have, IMO, been a series of 1.7.x releases where the base functionality
> was laid in 1.7.0 and improvements showed up at a regular basis in 1.7.1,
> 1.7.2, etc.  That mirrors the way that Linux does things and it's one of
> the reasons why Cygwin adopted a similar versioning strategy.

After 1.7.1 is released, the old scheme will be used again.


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