X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 12:04:56 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: Suggestion: split vim support files into separate package Message-ID: <20060626160456.GA15387@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com References: <000301c69932$565feee0$080a17d1@yourbes5v9ftq9> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 11:47:08AM -0400, Igor Peshansky wrote: >An alternative is to introduce explicitly versioned dependencies (i.e., >where the version becomes part of the package name). This is already done >for shared library packages -- whenever a new version gets released, a >compatibility package with the old version gets split off. The problem is >that this is quite a bit of effort, , >and the vim/gvim maintainers are (appropriately) not willing to invest >that much effort. While it's necessary for shared libraries (since you >never know who will be needing the old DLL version), I don't think this >would be too useful for two sister packages like vim and gvim. OTOH, if we had *rpm* for a package handler, this kind of thing would be detected and there would be warnings and everything! cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/