Mail Archives: cygwin-apps/2001/09/18/10:38:51
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 07:56:32PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
>
>>Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>
>>>>>Splitting is ok but what about just naming the file `ncurses5-5.2-1'?
>>>>>The package would be nearer to the other ncurses package in setup's
>>>>>package dialog.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>No objections here -- but Red Hat doesn't do it that way (nor does any
>>>>other RPM-based distro). Don't we want to be like Red Hat?
>>>>
>>
>>Also, then you'd have "ncurses5" and "ncurses6" -- which contain just
>>the dll's, along with "ncurses" which contains the executables and man
>>pages. That just doesn't seem to make much sense to me.
>>
>
> ??? I never said so. I was talking about the current package called
> "ncurses" and the old compatibility package called "curses5".
Yes, I understood that. I was looking ahead to the next ABI change, when
you'd NEED two compatibility packages. The problem then becomes
updating -- again -- all of the package descriptions that depend on
ncurses.
The argument about whether to short-circuit that *second* round of
dependency updates, and go ahead NOW with a ncurses6 (libncurses6)
compatibility package is a separate argument. (An argument I agree with).
--Chuck
- Raw text -