From: Paul Sokolovsky <pfalcon@us...> - 2000-11-02 23:13:35
Earnie, my criticism:
1. Unless it is official release (not alpha/beta), it should contain
timestamp in the filename and version. Even if you 100% sure it does
not contain bug, it cannot be release because we haven't elaborated on
2. It is bad idea to release two files under same package. One sweet
day SF will allow such thing as downloading latest rel of package by
single url. If that package will be one file, it will be redirected
to. If several files, stupid menu will show.
1. We *should* agree on consistent packaging conventions - from
archiver used to how procedures like building performed.
2. We should decide whether we will provide source packages at all. I
don't consider idea to address people to CVS insane (ok, ok, looking
thru my glasses ;-) ).
3. We should not use cryptic names for package. When name doesn't
depend on us, like in w32api case, that's ok. But we should choose
easily understood names for our own stuff. Please rename
mingwrt and mingwcb.
I'm awaiting your criticism of my packaging! ;-)
Paul Sokolovsky, IT Specialist