Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Date:	Thu, 4 Apr 2002 12:52:37 -0500
From:	Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: Should setup suggests to downgrade? [WAS: Lillypond for cygwin]
Message-ID:	<20020404175237.GB30978@redhat.com>
Reply-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References:	<3CA8B996 DOT 9050302 AT cox DOT net> <m3vgbbgoy7 DOT fsf AT appel DOT lilypond DOT org> <m3pu1fo5pl DOT fsf_-_ AT appel DOT lilypond DOT org> <3CAC7857 DOT 3050307 AT cox DOT net>
Mime-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<3CAC7857.3050307@cox.net>
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.3.23.1i

On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 10:59:19AM -0500, David A. Cobb wrote:
>An obvious problem is having everyone use a revision-level scheme that 
>tests correctly.  I see at least two very different schemes here.   
>Also, setup would need to parse, e.g. 1.9-3 so that it's less than 
>1.10-1.  I'll have to do a more thorough survey to see if a simple 
>minded algorithm would catch all the cases.

setup.exe has been able to determine that 1.9-3 < 1.10-1 for a couple
of years now.

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -