X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f
Date:	Sat, 18 Dec 2004 16:50:56 +0200
From:	"Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT gnu DOT org>
Sender:	halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To:	"Juan Manuel Guerrero" <st001906 AT hrz1 DOT hrz DOT tu-darmstadt DOT de>
Message-ID:	<01c4e511$Blat.v2.2.2$20464f60@zahav.net.il>
X-Mailer:	emacs 21.3.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 2.2.2
CC:	kasal AT ucw DOT cz, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com, texinfo-pretest AT texinfo DOT org
In-reply-to:	<41C2F49A.20461.302E855@localhost>
	(st001906 AT hrz1 DOT hrz DOT tu-darmstadt DOT de)
Subject:	Re: [karl AT gnu DOT org: [texinfo-pretest] texinfo 4.7.91 pretest available]
References:	<41C1FB67 DOT 30914 DOT 3174B34 AT localhost> <41C2F49A DOT 20461 DOT 302E855 AT localhost>
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

> From: "Juan Manuel Guerrero" <st001906 AT hrz1 DOT hrz DOT tu-darmstadt DOT de>
> Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 15:00:42 +0200
> Cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com, texinfo-pretest AT texinfo DOT org
> 
> IMHO there are three possible approches to solve this issue:
> 1) We do not care about it. In this case, our tar utility will ask for a new
>    name during the extraction process if it can not create one of the files.
>    Because those files are not checked dependencies during the compilation
>    process, the compilation process will succesfuly finish even if those files
>    have been extracted with a different name or not extracted at all.
> 2) Our tar utility is capable to rename files during extraction looking at a
>    translation list. In this case we must supply such a list, lets call it
>    "djgpp/fnchange.lst". The user will be able to extract this file and use it
>    to rename the conflicting files on the fly during extraction.
> 3) We do not care and let the maintainer of the djgpp packages (txi4NN[bsd].zip)
>    take care about all this.

I'd prefer

 4) Modify the offending file names to avoid the conflict in the first
    place.

Karl, can this be done?  One of the files, onceonly_2_57.m4, sounds
like it should be removed from the tarball (it's for Autoconf 2.57?),
anyway.  Even if not, I don't see any reason to see these file names
as sacred.

I think that any project that does not explicitly discontinue support
for the DJGPP port should avoid having file-name conflicts in its
tarball.  If there are lots of such files, fnchange.lst method is
justified (see the GDB tarball for an example).  But here we are
talking about changing only 2 file names, which shouldn't be a
problem.  Or is it?

- Raw text -