On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 03:58:14PM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: >On Tue, 24 Aug 2004, Gerrit P. Haase wrote: > >> Christopher schrieb: >> >> > On Tue, Aug 24, [EMAIL PROTECTED]:36:33PM +0200, Gerrit P. Haase wrote: >> >>I want to keep two prvious perl version available, now I need to know: >> >>is more than one tag for 'prev:' or 'test:' in setup.hint files >> >>supported and handled correct by upset? At least setup.exe seems to >> >>have no problems with more than one [prev] tag in setup.ini. >> >> > I'm surprised that setup.exe has no problems with more than one prev >> > but upset only maintains one level, so any setup.hint -> setup.ini >> > translation will eat extra prev's. >> >> > Why do you think you need multiple previous versions? >> >> I stillkeep [EMAIL PROTECTED] mirrors for people who don't believe that >> the new perl-5.8 is ok. Now I have updated to 5.8.5 and removed 5.8.2 >> but got complaints because the postgres perl extension is linked against >> 5.8.2 DLL. I need to rethink the package naming if it is not possible >> to get mroe than one prev tag into setup.ini (automatically, as >> mentioned it works well with setup.exe). > >Is there any reason why we can't have a perl561 or perl_5_6_1 package? >It can definitely co-exist with perl-5.8.*, the library is already >versioned, and the executables can have the 561, 5.6.1, or _5_6_1 >suffix...
Yes, if we *really* need to do this, that would be the way to go. I think we should resist doing this very strongly however. I don't believe that any other distribution is using 5.6.1 so I don't see why Cygwin needs to do so. If there are problems with perl 5.8.x, shouldn't we be fixing the problems? cgf
