X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 20:09:22 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: [1.7] perl updates
Message-ID: <20090822000922.GA8375@ednor.casa.cgf.cx>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <6910a60908210134j715911c6r2da8793f145f59ef AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>  <20090821084458 DOT GE32408 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de>  <4A8ED3E8 DOT 6030400 AT users DOT sourceforge DOT net>  <20090821203520 DOT GC15033 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20090821203520.GC15033@ednor.casa.cgf.cx>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
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, Aug 21, 2009 at 04:35:20PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>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.

Sorry.  I pullled in configure here when it didn't make a lot of sense
but I really don't like the notion of using the cygwin version number
in any type of configuration.

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