Mail Archives: cygwin-apps/2001/09/12/09:32:20
Earnie Boyd wrote:
> Earnie Boyd wrote:
>>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>>On Tue, Sep 11, 2001 at 11:54:46AM -0400, Earnie Boyd wrote:
>>>>Shortly I'll be releasing new packages for MinGW and w32api. The
>>>>current file name for MinGW isn't really reflective of the package name
>>>>itself. I would like to use mingw-runtime-$(VERSION)-$(CYGRELEASE) for
>>>>the name. I would also like to use w32api-$(VERSION)-$(CYGRELEASE) for
>>>>the w32api package name. This is more consistent with the packaging and
>>>>is more consistent with the way the packages are distributed by the
>>>>MinGW team. Comments or objections?
>>>I'm sure that this it will confuse the current version of setup if you
>>>call this mingw-runtime. How are you planning on dealing with the
>>Adding an entry `@ mingw-runtime' seems to work ok. It would give
>>enough time to work out the details of what to do for the `@ mingw'
>>entry for the next release, e.g.: a post install script to remove
>>entries from the setup control files in /etc/setup.
> Can I assume this to be acceptable?
If mingw-runtime is a strict superset of mingw, then yeah. Otherwise,
you'd need to also release an empty mingw package and have people
"upgrade" to that FIRST (this will remove all files in mingw, including
those files that mingw-runtime does not have), Then, have people
install mingw-runtime (with its postinstall script to munge
- Raw text -