[Please upload] Re: Fwd: [ITP] varnish-2.1.4-1 and varnish-r5665

[David Sastre]

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.

in http://cygwin.com/setup.html

It makes sense to me regardless it is a first release or an update.
Is it a wrong assumption?

-- 
Huella de clave primaria: 0FDA C36F F110 54F4 D42B  D0EB 617D 396C 448B 31EB
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://cygwin.com/pipermail/cygwin-apps/attachments/20110111/4d77ea1b/attachment.sig>