Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT cygwin DOT com List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com X-Draft-From: ("nnmh:indoos.cygwin-apps" 1534) To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Setup/prev/curr/test/metapackages/another screen/etc References: <20020327044009 DOT GA20971 AT redhat DOT com> Organization: Jan at Appel Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com From: Jan Nieuwenhuizen Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 09:22:07 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20020327044009.GA20971@redhat.com> (Christopher Faylor's message of "Tue, 26 Mar 2002 23:40:09 -0500") Message-ID: Lines: 27 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Christopher Faylor writes: > I really wish we had never even come up with the concept of > prev/curr/test. Maybe the prev release should be a completely separate > release, ditto test. You choose it early on in the setup process and > have setup.exe select from. I'm all for this. Of course, the separation can be implemented in different ways. > test/latest > test/contrib > > curr/latest > curr/contrib Why not keep the directory structure simple, and have eg, setup-test.ini, setup-curr.ini, setup-prev.ini. That way no tarballs need to be moved/copied from test to curr after found stable. Also, you'll want test to be afull release (ie, include 'curr' packages for packages that don't have a test version). Jan. -- Jan Nieuwenhuizen | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter http://www.xs4all.nl/~jantien | http://www.lilypond.org