> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 12:19 PM

> I don't think it's that big a deal to require cygwin packages 
> to follow 
> a parseable naming scheme; ours is pretty lenient...when it 
> fails, it's 
> not a terrible imposition to either change a '-' to a '_', or 
> swap some 
> digits and alphabetics within a -XXXX- word.

And package file names are not directly used by humans 99% of the time.
That's what setup + cygcheck + upset are for.

Rob

Reply via email to