This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-apps@cygwin.com
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Pending setup patches (issue 6)
Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
>>>> Also, dependences/dependencies: Both are valid words, but the 2nd
>>>> seems (to me) more commonly used?
>>>
>>> Must be my compiler background... I'll change it if it bothers
>>> people.
>>
>> That would be consistent with elsewhere in setup:
>>
>> choose.cc: Dependency *dp = pkg.desired->required;
>> package_version.cc:class DependencyProcessor {
>> package_version.cc: DependencyProcessor (trusts const &aTrust, int
>> aDepth=0) : deftrust (aTrust), depth (aDepth) {}
>> package_version.cc:select (DependencyProcessor &processor,
>> packagemeta *required, packageversion const &aVersion)
>> package_version.cc:processOneDependency(trusts deftrust, size_t
>> depth, PackageSpecification *spec) package_version.cc:
>> DependencyProcessor processor (deftrust, depth);
>> package_version.cc: changed += processOneDependency (deftrust,
>> depth, *i) + 1;
>> package_version.cc: changed += processOneDependency (deftrust,
>> depth, *i) + 1;
>
> Funny you should mention it, the autotools stuff uses "dependence"...
Actually it uses *both*!
Max.