----- Original Message ----- From: "Charles Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>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
