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: <056d01c1788b$e28922f0$0200a8c0@lifelesswks>
From: "Robert Collins" <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>
To: <cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
References: <055d01c1788a$bd563cd0$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks>
Subject: Re: unversioned tarballs - do we need to support them (as far as prev/curr/test goes)
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 15:11:12 +1100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Nov 2001 04:12:37.0535 (UTC) FILETIME=[145B0AF0:01C1788C]

Ignore this, time for a break I think.

Rob
===
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Collins" <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>
To: <cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2001 3:03 PM
Subject: unversioned tarballs - do we need to support them (as far as
prev/curr/test goes)


> The only unversioned tarballs on sources.redhat are byacc and m4.
>
> Is there any need for support for handling those correctly as far as
> setting defaults goes?
>
> i.e. can we lose this corner case from the version code.
>
> I see the possible impact as
>
> 1) we need to release updated mt and byacc with versioned names.
> 2) Local tarballs that aren't versioned will still be installable.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Rob
>
>