Corinna Vinschen wrote: > Why, we could always name the next versions "cygwin-newer", > "cygwin-evenmorenew", "cygwin-newerthannew" and > "cygwin-reallyreallynew-imeanit". > > > How about cygwinng? > > With a dash? cygwin-ng? Like syslog-ng. I was going to suggest this > too, but I didn't want to copy the naming too bluntly. I guess we > should use "cygwin-notasnewbutstillnewenough". I'm still more leaning > towards cygwin-2008. You shouldn't have suggested the name. It's all > your fault.
Okay, so, several years ago setup.exe HEAD was modified to look for "release" and "release_legacy" as the base dirname for packages depending on whether it was running on 9x/ME or NT/2k/etc. I understand that having Cygwin 1.7 playground is a different concept, but why should it be handled differently? Why not "release_1.7"? This is all temporary anyway IIUC, since it's just for testing packages built with 1.7, which will eventually all be moved over into just plain "release" anyway, right? If this is *not* temporary then how does it fit into the idea of having a legacy 9x/ME area? Brian
