On Jul 1 09:49, David Rothenberger wrote: > On 7/1/2009 3:52 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >> On Jun 30 09:02, David Rothenberger wrote: >>> On 6/30/2009 1:30 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >>>> Here, the aprutil1 package still exists in the 1.7 release area, but >>>> I don't think it makes sense anymore, along the same lines as for >>>> libapr1. I think it should be ok to remove it from the 1.7 release. >>>> What do you say? >>> The aprutil1 and apr1 packages are just transition packages to help >>> people upgrade from the old package naming schema to the new one. >>> They don't need to be in the 1.7 area if we believe everyone will >>> have updated their apr1 and aprutil1 packages before they try to >>> upgrade to 1.7. I'm not sure that's true, though. It seems there are >>> at least some people that only update once every 3-5 years. :-) >> >> So you'd rather have the apr1 package in the 1.7 release as well? > > I don't know the right answer.
What I was trying to say is this: It's your choice. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat
