Re: [[email protected]: texinfo 4.7.91 pretest available]

> From: "Juan Manuel Guerrero" <[email protected]>
> Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 15:00:42 +0200
> Cc: [email protected], [email protected]
> 
> IMHO there are three possible approches to solve this issue:
> 1) We do not care about it. In this case, our tar utility will ask for a new
>    name during the extraction process if it can not create one of the files.
>    Because those files are not checked dependencies during the compilation
>    process, the compilation process will succesfuly finish even if those files
>    have been extracted with a different name or not extracted at all.
> 2) Our tar utility is capable to rename files during extraction looking at a
>    translation list. In this case we must supply such a list, lets call it
>    "djgpp/fnchange.lst". The user will be able to extract this file and use it
>    to rename the conflicting files on the fly during extraction.
> 3) We do not care and let the maintainer of the djgpp packages (txi4NN[bsd].zip)
>    take care about all this.

I'd prefer

 4) Modify the offending file names to avoid the conflict in the first
    place.

Karl, can this be done?  One of the files, onceonly_2_57.m4, sounds
like it should be removed from the tarball (it's for Autoconf 2.57?),
anyway.  Even if not, I don't see any reason to see these file names
as sacred.

I think that any project that does not explicitly discontinue support
for the DJGPP port should avoid having file-name conflicts in its
tarball.  If there are lots of such files, fnchange.lst method is
justified (see the GDB tarball for an example).  But here we are
talking about changing only 2 file names, which shouldn't be a
problem.  Or is it?
_______________________________________________
Texinfo home page: http://www.gnu.org/software/texinfo/
[email protected]
http://ff0.org/mailman/listinfo/texinfo-pretest