This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-apps@cygwin.com
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: unversioned tarballs - do we need to support them (as far as prev/curr/test goes)
- From: "Robert Collins" <robert dot collins at itdomain dot com dot au>
- To: <cygwin-apps at sources dot redhat dot com>
- Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 15:11:12 +1100
- Subject: Re: unversioned tarballs - do we need to support them (as far as prev/curr/test goes)
- References: <055d01c1788a$bd563cd0$0200a8c0@lifelesswks>
Ignore this, time for a break I think.
Rob
===
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Collins" <robert.collins@itdomain.com.au>
To: <cygwin-apps@sources.redhat.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
>
>