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
Message-ID:	<3EA6F8FA.1040105@etr-usa.com>
Date:	Wed, 23 Apr 2003 14:35:06 -0600
From:	Warren Young <warren AT etr-usa DOT com>
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030312
X-Accept-Language:	en-us, en
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: Cygwin patch numbers
References:	<000201c30915$dcf96180$5c16989e AT oemcomputer> <20030423133100 DOT GB11137 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de>
In-Reply-To:	<20030423133100.GB11137@cygbert.vinschen.de>

Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> Why should packages on Cygwin show another version number than the same
> package on e. g. Linux?  For instance the grep package:
> 
> linux$ rpm -q grep
> grep-2.4.2-6
> linux$ grep --version
> grep (GNU grep) 2.4.2
> [...]

Perfectly reasonable behavior.  It's the package manager's job to track 
package update levels, not the binaries' job.  We have a system with 
cygcheck that works tolerably well now; if someday Cygwin moves to RPM, 
it will be even easier to find package update levels.


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -