On 14 March 2013 15:55, Earnie Boyd wrote:
Keith does my retort satisfy your concerns?

I still have some; in particular, I still think it is a really bad
idea to have two packages, with differing names as you propose, which
deliver (at least a subset of) identically named files.  (FWIW, and
just like you, apparently, I was not of this conviction initially, but
Chuck convinced me; as I have progressed the development of mingw-get,
my conviction has increased).

Meanwhile, I have been exploring my own proposed alternative method of
delivery.  It also works well, and it has the benefit of avoiding the
issue of overlapping package content, entirely.

I know you're itching to get a candidate out, but I'll need to get back
to you; I'll aim to do that by end of play tomorrow.