Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT cygwin DOT com
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID: <08a801c19c6f$b5539060$0200a8c0@lifelesswks>
From: "Robert Collins" <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>
To: "Charles Wilson" <cwilson AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
Cc: <cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
References: <3C3C8A0E DOT 9000100 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <20020109183309 DOT GB6261 AT redhat DOT com> <024601c1995d$304b3d10$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <3C41314E DOT 50406 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <05ec01c19c02$d05b0c20$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <3C4137B5 DOT 2000807 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <060001c19c06$097f5080$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <3C41AEED DOT 2070904 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
Subject: Re: ITP: libtool-devel, libtool-stable, libtool (wrappers)
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 07:20:12 +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: 13 Jan 2002 20:20:06.0875 (UTC) FILETIME=[B10C22B0:01C19C6F]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Wilson" <cwilson AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>

> >>Correct -- it does work from R to L.  If we cannot depend on this
> >>behavior, then we must rename the following packages:
> >>
> >
> > Which is one of the implications of the thread where you said
> > http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2002-01/msg00208.html.
>
>
> Well, consider it a thinko on my part.  I was considering
> "foo-alphabetic-version-release" different from
> "foo-numeric-version-release" -- but of course, version can have
> alphabetic characters in it, and my bzip example had numerals in the
> "extra" field.
>
> So both cases really just boil down to: there are four pegs and only
> three slots.

> I think this is a social problem, not a software engineering problem.
> Either way you are imposing a requirement on packagers:

Uh-huh :}.

> I think we are already doing (a) -- so why not just make that policy,
> and go with it...and force upset/setup to obey.

The difference between a and b being that a allows
package-long-description-ver-rel.tar.gz  whereas b requires
package-ver-rel.tar.gz ?
Frankly I'd prefer b (scales better), and I thought we'd made that
policy already (but http://www.cygwin.com/setup.html#naming doesn't
cover this). Interesting to note that the next section specifies that
the version _must_ start with a digit, which leads to the tetex
mis-parsing you highlit below.

> > The other question, is  - should '-' or '_' go between name, version
and
> > cygwin-version?
>
>
> '-' definitely.
.
> I don't really see a difference between tetex-beta and tetex_beta.
> Either is fine with me (actually, I believe it should be just 'tetex'.
> Doesn't the fact that it has a version number of 20001218 indicate
that
> the source was taken from CVS and is therefore, by definition,
"beta"?)

AH yes - thus showcasing the point at hand:
"tetex" - "beta-20001218" - "cygver" is parsed as
"tetex-beta" - "20001218" - "cygver"!

However my point about -/_ was on readability, not just tetex!

Rob