X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Message-ID: <49FB6796.8000209@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 01 May 2009 22:20:22 +0100 From: Dave Korn User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: [1.5] v. [1.7] unison: version clash? 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> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Id: 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 Mark J. Reed wrote: > On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 4:44 PM, Dave Korn wrote: >> I must be feeling a little "special" today. Why 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. But that was before there were two Cygwin versions. > Here we have two packages with the same filename that are not in fact > the same package. Ergo, someone messed up somewhere. :) But they exist in entirely separate name spaces, don't they? How could the similarity or difference of the names actually lead to anything going wrong in practice, unless you're in the habit of casually pulling tarballs out of your local package dir and manually installing them? cheers, DaveK -- 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/