X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
Date:	Fri, 1 May 2009 20:41:30 -0400
From:	Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please AT cygwin DOT com>
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: [1.5] v. [1.7] unison: version clash?
Message-ID:	<20090502004130.GA7586@ednor.casa.cgf.cx>
Reply-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References:	<49FB47AE DOT 3010401 AT bonhard DOT uklinux DOT net> <g3imv4l6pplfoop53pt9d6jbvppluvm601 AT 4ax DOT com> <20090501191256 DOT GE11295 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <49FB5F2B DOT 1080400 AT gmail DOT com>
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<49FB5F2B.1080400@gmail.com>
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09)
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

On Fri, May 01, 2009 at 09:44:27PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Fri, May 01, 2009 at 03:09:04PM -0400, Andrew Schulman wrote:
>>>> I know they are downloaded from different directories release/ and release-2/ and installed into different versions of Cygwin [1.5] and [1.7] but up to now different package versions have always had different version numbers.
>>>> With the most recent update of unison this convention has been broken:
>
>>>> If the "convention" identified above is real and intended (which I hope it is) please could the version numbering for this latest installation of unison be corrected to adhere to it?
>>> Fergus, you're right.  Sorry, I forgot about that.  Friggin PITA, packaging
>>> for 1.5 and 1.7...
>> 
>> Doh.  I forgot too.  I should have noticed this when I uploaded.
>
>I must be feeling a little "special" today.  Why should there be any
>relationship between 1.5 package numbers and 1.7 package numbers?

I think we decided in cygwin-apps that cygwin packages should be
numbered differently between 1.5 and 1.7 just for clarity since the
namespace isn't reflected in the package name.

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -