Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Message-ID: <3BA75C68.9050901@ece.gatech.edu>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 10:38:32 -0400
From: Charles Wilson <cwilson AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.2) Gecko/20010713
X-Accept-Language: en-us
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Corinna Vinschen <cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject: Re: [RFD] ncurses update
References: <3BA3A5F4 DOT 8010100 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <20010917182915 DOT C10081 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> <3BA63755 DOT 9040406 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <20010917210951 DOT H10081 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> <3BA68DB0 DOT 20308 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <20010918102041 DOT I22900 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Corinna Vinschen wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 07:56:32PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
> 
>>Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>
>>>>>Splitting is ok but what about just naming the file `ncurses5-5.2-1'?
>>>>>The package would be nearer to the other ncurses package in setup's
>>>>>package dialog.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>No objections here -- but Red Hat doesn't do it that way (nor does any 
>>>>other RPM-based distro).  Don't we want to be like Red Hat?
>>>>
>>
>>Also, then you'd have "ncurses5" and "ncurses6" -- which contain just 
>>the dll's, along with "ncurses" which contains the executables and man 
>>pages.  That just doesn't seem to make much sense to me.
>>
> 
> ??? I never said so.  I was talking about the current package called
> "ncurses" and the old compatibility package called "curses5".


Yes, I understood that. I was looking ahead to the next ABI change, when 
you'd NEED two compatibility packages.  The problem then becomes 
updating -- again -- all of the package descriptions that depend on 
ncurses.

The argument about whether to short-circuit that *second* round of 
dependency updates, and go ahead NOW with a ncurses6 (libncurses6) 
compatibility package is a separate argument.  (An argument I agree with).

--Chuck