On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 10:24:09AM +, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> Is there anything preventing a rename of libpcre2-dev to libpcre-dev, first?
That should, of course, have been
"Is there anything preventing a rename of libpcre3-dev to libpcre-dev, first?"
On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 03:51:26PM +, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> No, the -dev packages will need to be co-installable, too. I expect
> we'll need to ship PCRE (including its -dev package) for quite some time.
>
> ...so I'm still not sure what to call PCRE2 :-/
Sorry if I'm being thick, but libpc
On 10/22/2015 10:47 AM, Matthew Vernon wrote:
The natural thing to call the PCRE2 packages is pcre2, but that's going
to lead to confusion - ISTM that something that makes it clear that
PCRE2 is newer than PCRE is desirable. And, obviously, PCRE & PCRE2 need
to be co-installable.
There are alre
Matthew Vernon writes:
> No, the -dev packages will need to be co-installable, too. I expect
> we'll need to ship PCRE (including its -dev package) for quite some time.
> ...so I'm still not sure what to call PCRE2 :-/
It's pretty ugly, but I'd tend to use libpcre-v2-dev. Hopefully people
will
Hi,
Simon Richter writes:
> Hi Matthew,
>
> On 22.10.2015 16:47, Matthew Vernon wrote:
>
> > Upstream has a new PCRE library, which they hope everyone will
> > eventually migrate to, which is called PCRE2. It is currently version
> > 10.20. It ships things named like libpcre2-8.so.0, and its p
Hi Matthew,
On 22.10.2015 16:47, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> Upstream has a new PCRE library, which they hope everyone will
> eventually migrate to, which is called PCRE2. It is currently version
> 10.20. It ships things named like libpcre2-8.so.0, and its pcregrep is
> called pcre2grep.
That should
6 matches
Mail list logo
