On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 07:33:50PM -0700, Joe Linoff wrote:
Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 04:06:21PM -0700, Joe Linoff wrote:
I am afraid that I am not sure what you mean by beta-test but I don't
think that the program needs to be tested at all.
Any reason for sending this multiple times?
What everyone seems to be missing is this:
http://cygwin.com/cgi-bin2/package-cat.cgi?file=ccdoc%2Fccdoc-0.8.39-1&grep=ccdoc
ccdoc is already part of the distribution.
That's what I mean by "beta test". I don't understand why you'd send a
"ready for experimentation" message here. Do you see any other messages
like that in this mailing list?
No, but the setup.html specifically refers to "experimentation" in step
9 of the "submitting a package" guidelines.
That was a poor choice of words (it was probably mine) but it wasn't referring
to cygwin-apps, anyway.
I'm thoroughly confused. You are the package maintainer but you, and
everyone else are treating this like a new experience.
It is a new experience, sort of. This time I tried to the follow the
http:://cygwin.com/setup.html instructions as closely as possible. In
doing so, I ran across a number of things that appeared different than
last time:
1. Version number appeared to be <major>.<minor>.
The page says:
"Package naming scheme: use the vendor's version plus a release suffix
for ports of existing packages..."
No one is forcing you to do make it <major>.<minor>. There are a
number of examples of packages which are more than just <major>.<minor>
but a really obvious one is the cygwin DLL itself.