On 6/27/06, joerg@britannica.bec.de <joerg@britannica.bec.de> wrote:
>         foo-*           => foo (*)

> The general problem is that even the patterns above are not exact,
> possible best explained by (*). (*) matches foo-1.2, but also
> foo-bar-1.2, which can not be easily reproduced. I don't think it is a
> problem within the current tree, but still a bit nasty.

This was supposed to be eliminated some time ago with the [0-9]*
pattern changes.

-- 
-- Todd Vierling <tv@duh.org> <tv@pobox.com> <todd@vierling.name>