X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status:	No, hits=-3.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
Message-Id:	<1235663192.7606.1302546541@webmail.messagingengine.com>
From:	"Charles Wilson" <cygwin AT cwilson DOT fastmail DOT fm>
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
MIME-Version:	1.0
Subject:	Re: ITP: tack-1.06-1
Date:	Thu, 26 Feb 2009 10:46:32 -0500
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/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

> Has the correct version of 'tack' been built and packaged? It appears that version 1.05
> was built and packaged as version 1.06-1.
>
> $ cygcheck -c tack
> Cygwin Package Information
> Package              Version        Status
> tack                 1.06-1         OK
>
>
> $ tack -V
> tack version 1.05
> [snipped]

Yes, that's correct. Upstream tack-1.06.tgz forgot to update tack.h when
they rolled the 1.06 release:

$ grep VERSION tack-1.06/tack.h
#define MAJOR_VERSION 1
#define MINOR_VERSION 5

I didn't notice the problem before I released the cygwin package, and I
don't think its worth a respin for just that.  But thanks for pointing
out the problem.

--
Chuck

--
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 -