This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-talk@cygwin.com
mailing list for the cygwin project.
Re: sometimes resource alters but version numbers don't
- From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-no-personal-reply-please at cygwin dot com>
- To: cygwin-talk at cygwin dot com
- Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 23:39:17 -0500
- Subject: Re: sometimes resource alters but version numbers don't
- References: <1100429074.2589.13.camel@82-40-123-11.cable.ubr01.pert.blueyonder.co.uk> <419741F1.5060009@x-ray.at> <20041114174021.GA13076@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> <20041115031914.GB2352@efn.org>
- Reply-to: Talk Amongst Yourselves <cygwin-talk at cygwin dot com>
- Reply-to: cygwin-talk at cygwin dot com
On Sun, Nov 14, 2004 at 07:19:15PM -0800, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
>On Sun, Nov 14, 2004 at 12:40:21PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> As hard as this is to believe, the changes to X11 packages were discussed
>> (drum roll please) ON THE cygwin-xfree list! Can you believe it? What
>> are the odds?
>
>Huh; I'd assumed that list had been deleted when XFree86 went away,
>and that nobody had got around to creating a new cygwin-xorg list yet
>(or updating the website). After all, there're hardly enough cygwin X
>users to justify a special list.
Yeah, we deleted the list and then just kept the reference to it around
on http://cygwin.com/lists.html and constantly redirected people to the
cygwin-xfree list when they wanted to discuss X topics. For sport.
>> The reason that the version numbers did not change is that the contents
>> of the packages did not change. The .tar.bz2 files were repacked in a
>> different order to see if this solved an installation problem. There
>> is no need for anyone to download these new packages.
>>
>> There was nothing untoward to detect here, no need for an "improved"
>> upset, and no need to panic.
>
>Spoilsport! Don't you know how many people *enjoy* panicking?
For some reason the very thought of this fills me with an intense but
somehow pleasurable sence of urgency.
cgf