Mail Archives: cygwin-apps/2002/01/13/13:29:55
Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 13, 2002 at 12:14:24PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote:
>
>>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>
>>>Didn't I already vote on this? I can't remember.
>>>
>>>I say "just do it", too.
>>>
>>I'm waiting for resolution/consensus on the '-' vs. '_' issue...if we
>>*are* going to rename auto*-[stable|devel] to auto*_[stable|devel], I
>>don't want to have to rename the libtool packages too. I want them
>>named "correctly" from the beginning.
>>
>
> I thought that the consensus (i.e., Robert and me) was that '_' shouldn't
> be special.
Correct, but I'm referring to a different '-' vs. '_' issue -- the one
you outline below:
>
> I don't see any reason to rename libtool-devel to libtool_devel, though.
> It is only a problem when there is a number involved after the dash.
> There are other packages which use dashes in their names.
right -- and robert is (tentatively?) advocating a CHANGE in that --
disallowing '-' within the pkgname field. It looks like you, me, and
Corinna all prefer the status quo: dashes okay, and require parsing from
R to L, so that the final two '-' delimited fields (of N >= 3) are VER
and REL.
So, xxx-yyy-zzz-VER-REL has five "fields" (even though we presume that
xxx-yyy-zzz is the actual pkgname, '-' characters and all). When parsed
R to L, you end up with field #5 =REL, field #4 =VER, and "the rest" = name.
Robert is worried about the fragility of that scheme, and (may) be
advocating a requirement so that:
xxx_yyy_zzz-VER-REL
has specifically 3 '-' delimited fields. No confusion. Field #1 =name.
Field #2=VER. Field #3=REL. This requires renaming five existing
packages, and impacts the naming of my proposed libtool packages.
--Chuck
- Raw text -