On Thu, Jun 29, 2006 at 04:31:38PM -0400, Todd Vierling wrote:
> 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.

Good to know. I count over 30 instances in the tree. After the freeze
I'll convert them to the "new" format first.

Joerg