Hey.
Just wanted to give this a bump, as it wasn't clearly rejected, but
merged either.
I mean the exceptions to the rule mentioned by Jon are still there,
aren't they.
And even if someone was going to write some option that provides output
in a more standardised format, I don't see much harm in
On Fri, 2024-05-24 at 17:24 +0100, Jon Turney wrote:
>
> So, this isn't really true, per the rules [1]. However, there are
> some
> historical exceptions [2], which ideally we'd remove or replace.
Well, I guess as long as they still exist, respectively as long as it's
technically possible to ha
On 22/05/2024 01:35, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
From: Christoph Anton Mitterer
Thanks very much for this patch.
Both, package names and version numbers, are allowed to contain `-`, which makes
the output of `cygcheck --find-package` not parseable.
So, this isn't really true, per the r
From: Christoph Anton Mitterer
Both, package names and version numbers, are allowed to contain `-`, which makes
the output of `cygcheck --find-package` not parseable.
This changes the separator between package name and version to be a space, which
is not allowed in package names.
Signed-off-by:
