Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender:	cygwin-apps-owner AT cygwin DOT com
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID:	<04e601c19bbf$9d945f50$0200a8c0@lifelesswks>
From:	"Robert Collins" <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>
To:	<cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
References:	<3C3EE6D5 DOT 8916443E AT wapme-systems DOT de> <72101602526 DOT 20020111144934 AT familiehaase DOT de> <3C3EF0C4 DOT 8E174E43 AT wapme-systems DOT de> <20020111151053 DOT G12057 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> <3C401735 DOT 6B3F7B0D AT wapme-systems DOT de> <20020112190548 DOT U12057 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> <3C407CC2 DOT 14A44B9C AT wapme-systems DOT de> <047c01c19bbe$a764d7e0$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <20020112231545 DOT GA23748 AT redhat DOT com>
Subject:	Re: [ANN] apache_1.3.22-2
Date:	Sun, 13 Jan 2002 10:19:41 +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:	12 Jan 2002 23:19:37.0219 (UTC) FILETIME=[9A427530:01C19BBF]

===
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Faylor" <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: <cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2002 10:15 AM
Subject: Re: [ANN] apache_1.3.22-2


> On Sun, Jan 13, 2002 at 10:12:48AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
> >If you want to be able to have both apoache 1.3 and 2 installed
> >concurrently, then that is the only valid reason to use an
underscore -
> >and the result should look like
> >
> >apache_1-1.3.22-3
>
> Actually, the setup.exe code seems to equate '_' and '-' the same way.
> Unfortunately, I don't think that 'upset' is quite as forgiving but
> that's not a permanent problem, of course.
>
> So that means that the above package name would still be "apache" if
> I am reading things correctly.

It may - hmm I'll need to check. The above package name would be
'apache_1' - thus allowing the coexistence of it and 'apache_2'.

This should (of course) be rare and need group input before happening.

Rob

- Raw text -