Christopher Faylor wrote: > upset would probably do the right thing with the above but I really don't > see any reason to use it, regardless. I don't see any reason why a user > would need to know that these are kdelibs-2 when it is pretty obvious from > the version number. The naming was probably inherited from linux, where it is possible to have both kde (1) and kde (2) and kde (3) all installed on the same machine. Therefore, each needs different basename. If the kde-cygwin folks want to maintain that package-name distinction, then they should just use "kdelibs_2" instead of "kdelibs-2" as their basename. Then upset and setup will be happy -- and end users will be able to install both kdelibs_2 and kdelibs_3. --Chuck
- Incorrect version in packages names Sylvain Petreolle
- Re: Incorrect version in packages names Christopher Faylor
- Re: Incorrect version in packages names Robert Collins
- Re: Incorrect version in packages names Christopher Faylor
- Re: Incorrect version in packages name... Robert Collins
- Re: Incorrect version in packages name... Nicholas Wourms
- Re: Incorrect version in packages... Sylvain Petreolle
- RE: Incorrect version in pack... Ralf Habacker
- RE: Incorrect version in packages name... Charles Wilson
- RE: Incorrect version in packages... Ralf Habacker
- RE: Incorrect version in packages... Ralf Habacker
- Re: Incorrect version in pack... Lapo Luchini
- RE: Incorrect version in ... Ralf Habacker
- Re: Incorrect version in ... Nicholas Wourms
- Re: Incorrect version in pack... Charles Wilson