On Jul 1 13:47, David Rothenberger wrote: > On 7/1/2009 12:24 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >> 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. > > Okay, then yes, I'd like to have the apr1 and aprutil1 packages in the > 1.7 release area.
Ok, I added the apr1 package to 1.7. Thanks, Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat