X-Recipient: archive-cygwin@delorie.com X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 16:35:20 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: [1.7] perl updates Message-ID: <20090821203520.GC15033@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com References: <6910a60908210134j715911c6r2da8793f145f59ef@mail.gmail.com> <20090821084458.GE32408@calimero.vinschen.de> <4A8ED3E8.6030400@users.sourceforge.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4A8ED3E8.6030400@users.sourceforge.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: 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 Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 12:05:44PM -0500, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote: >On 21/08/2009 03:44, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >>Erm... sorry, but why would you want to do this? Either you have a >>1.5 based installation running a 1.5 perl, or you have a 1.7 based >>installation running a 1.7 perl. If you have two independent Cygwin >>trees, one 1.5 and one 1.7, then there won't be any collision either. >>I really don't understand what that's good for. > >A lot of unnecessary work on my end, perhaps? I'm with you on this >one; please do NOT do this. Ditto. I thought we'd already gone down this path and decided not to make tests based on the cygwin version number. Presumably configure should be smart enough and fine-grained enough to make the required decisions without this. cgf -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple