X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status:	No, hits=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,FREEMAIL_FROM,NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,TW_YG,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY
X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From:	Andrew Hancock <andymhancock AT gmail DOT com>
Subject:	Understanding versions of apps in cygwin suite
Date:	Sat, 3 Dec 2011 04:26:10 +0000 (UTC)
Lines:	5
Message-ID:	<loom.20111203T052154-912@post.gmane.org>
Mime-Version:	1.0
User-Agent:	Loom/3.14 (http://gmane.org/)
X-IsSubscribed:	yes
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

According to http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?func=detailitem&item_id=30309 , a bug
with octave's wavread function was fixed in octave 3.2.3.  My "cygcheck -cvs"
shows an octave of 3.4.2, but I still get the bug.  I was wondering if it is
wise to assume that the app version number from cygcheck is the same as the
version number from the gnu site?


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

- Raw text -