Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-apps-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender:	cygwin-apps-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Message-ID:	<055d01c1788a$bd563cd0$0200a8c0@lifelesswks>
From:	"Robert Collins" <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>
To:	<cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
Subject:	unversioned tarballs - do we need to support them (as far as prev/curr/test goes)
Date:	Thu, 29 Nov 2001 15:03:01 +1100
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Priority:	3
X-MSMail-Priority:	Normal
X-Mailer:	Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
X-OriginalArrivalTime:	29 Nov 2001 04:04:25.0610 (UTC) FILETIME=[EF253EA0:01C1788A]

The only unversioned tarballs on sources.redhat are byacc and m4.

Is there any need for support for handling those correctly as far as
setting defaults goes?

i.e. can we lose this corner case from the version code.

I see the possible impact as

1) we need to release updated mt and byacc with versioned names.
2) Local tarballs that aren't versioned will still be installable.

Thoughts?

Rob

- Raw text -