X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SARE_MSGID_LONG40,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <49FB5F2B.1080400@gmail.com> References: <49FB47AE DOT 3010401 AT bonhard DOT uklinux DOT net> <20090501191256 DOT GE11295 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <49FB5F2B DOT 1080400 AT gmail DOT com> Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 17:00:52 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [1.5] v. [1.7] unison: version clash? From: "Mark J. Reed" To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 4:44 PM, Dave Korn wrote: > =C2=A0I must be feeling a little "special" today. =C2=A0Why should there = be any > relationship between 1.5 package numbers and 1.7 package numbers? I think that traditionally, if you found two Cygwin packages in the wild without any other context, and they had the same filename, they were ipso facto the same package. Unless someone messed up somewhere. Here we have two packages with the same filename that are not in fact the same package. Ergo, someone messed up somewhere. :) --=20 Mark J. Reed -- 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/