From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13797 invoked by alias); 25 Jul 2008 09:40:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 13786 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Jul 2008 09:40:17 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from aquarius.hirmke.de (HELO calimero.vinschen.de) (217.91.18.234) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Fri, 25 Jul 2008 09:39:59 +0000 Received: by calimero.vinschen.de (Postfix, from userid 500) id B18C86D4354; Fri, 25 Jul 2008 11:40:34 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 09:40:00 -0000 From: Corinna Vinschen To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com Subject: Re: [RFC] 1.7 Packaging: Obsolete packages Message-ID: <20080725094034.GR5251@calimero.vinschen.de> Reply-To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com References: <48880879.5050400@users.sourceforge.net> <20080724094313.GG5251@calimero.vinschen.de> <488913D9.8070809@users.sourceforge.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <488913D9.8070809@users.sourceforge.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Sender: cygwin-apps-owner@cygwin.com List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com X-SW-Source: 2008-07/txt/msg00132.txt.bz2 On Jul 24 18:44, Yaakov (Cygwin Ports) wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > Corinna Vinschen wrote: > | I'm not sure if there's really a big difference between these two points. > | Since we're using two different installation directories, we can get rid > | of old cruft, if we just look carefully what's still used and what not. > | > | The release-2 directory has already no obsolete packages anymore. Stuff > | like minires, which is now a part of Cygwin, can entirely go away as > | soon as all packages relying on resolver functions have been rebuilt. > > The difference is if I want to reorganize a package when I rebuild it > for 1.7, e.g. right now I have: > > pcre => pcre, libpcre0, pcre-devel, pcre-doc > > If I want to rename pcre-devel to libpcre-devel, then normally I would > need an empty _obsolete pcre-devel package which deps libpcre-devel to > make the upgrade smooth. That wouldn't be necessary if we don't support > upgrading to 1.7 in the same installation. > > That may seem like a trivial example, but a transition like X11R6 to > X11R7 would be a lot bigger. Nice example. Still, for now we should assume that we go the upgrade path. I'm going to investigate the impact of a clean cut in the next couple of days. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat