From: "Ben Hyde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 9:20 PM
> Greg Stein wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 05:34:51PM -0800, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > > >... > > > http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/httpd-2_0_31-alpha.tar.gz > > > > Why can't we name our damned tarballs and resulting directories like all > > other packages out there? > > A superstitious behavior involving a fear of the Windows handling of > extensions. One of those things I recall feeling strongly about at > the time. - ben And there was a day, not long ago, that foo.x.y.z would have choked a good number of Win32 filesystems, especially if the files lived on Netware or LanMan Network shares. I'd safely pronounce those days nearly gone, and 2.0 is as good a time as any to change this convention. We have a number of index.html.foo files out there, that couldn't even be unpacked. So many files in our cvs are mult-extension that having a 2.0.31 really isn't a big issue. [If it doesn't unpack into the top level correctly - the user can guess that the contents below are mucked up as well :-] Bill
