Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: Oops?
From:	Robert Collins <rbcollins AT cygwin DOT com>
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.GSO.4.44.0208042155540.694-100000@slinky.cs.nyu.edu>
References:	<Pine DOT GSO DOT 4 DOT 44 DOT 0208042155540 DOT 694-100000 AT slinky DOT cs DOT nyu DOT edu>
Date:	05 Aug 2002 12:04:29 +1000
Message-Id:	<1028513075.8966.178.camel@lifelesswks>
Mime-Version:	1.0

--=-Qukj+u0t8lb2cUoULvl0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, 2002-08-05 at 11:58, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> It's a question for the packagers whether the dll version should be
> consistent with the package version.

It's not a question. The dll version is orthogonal to the package
version.

Rob


--=-Qukj+u0t8lb2cUoULvl0
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iEYEABECAAYFAj1N3SwACgkQI5+kQ8LJcoI9mACgzXGwMZly49Bnqm2yg+iFnOeR
a8MAoLccw4RVYRw31PyaF74Xa/KmL2iM
=kDAC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-Qukj+u0t8lb2cUoULvl0--

- Raw text -