----- Original Message ----- From: "Charles Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Robert Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2002 6:31 PM Subject: Re: ITP: libtool-devel, libtool-stable, libtool (wrappers)
> Robert Collins wrote: > > > >>Okay, I've renamed the devel package: > >> > >>libtool-devel-20010531-6 > >> > > > > that should be libtool_devel-20010531-6 shouldn't it? > > (devel is a flavour and thus part of the name). > > > > I _think_ that the current upset and setup.exe logic actually starts at > > the right and owrks left, so that teh '-''d name will appear in setup > > correctly, but I don't think we should rely on this behaviour. > > > 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. > autoconf-devel > autoconf-stable > automake-devel > automake-stable > tetex-beta We don't need to rename them immediately, but at the first opportunity IMO. And setup will need to be geared to handle the rename smoothly as well (which is on the long term plan anyway). Does '-' sort before or after '_' ? :]. I don't like having fragile behaviour in setup.exe - and this is potentially fragile - thus the desire to simplify the parsing rules. I'm open to commentary - ideally, long term, setup will not care at all about file naming outside of local scanned installs, and that can be done via a preprocessor to generate a setup.ini. This however _requires_ setup.ini to be have more required fields than it does today. The other question, is - should '-' or '_' go between name, version and cygwin-version? tetex-beta is more intuitive that tetex_beta, but doing it that way would require relabelling all the packages globally. Of course a transition period will exist before setup.exe and upset are changed... but that could be quite long :]. Rob
