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

jdzstz - gmail dot com jdzstz@gmail.com
Tue Jan 11 10:09:00 GMT 2011

Do you want to renumber the packages to varnish-xxx-1  or  I keep
actual name "varnish-xxx-5"??

The only problem with rename is that old messages in cygwin-apps
mailist can confuse in the future.

2011/1/11 David Sastre :
> 2011/1/11, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 07:23:45AM +0100, David Sastre wrote:
>>>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.
>> The package was never on the server, i.e., it was never released.  If
>> a package ever touches cygwin.com then, yes, you have to bump the
>> version any time you make any change no matter how tiny.
>> I don't care if the package is released with -57 release number but I
>> don't want it to get into the common knowledge pool that it is a
>> requirement because it isn't.
> Duly noted. Thanks for the clarification.

More information about the Cygwin-apps mailing list