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
From: "Stephen C. Biggs" <yyyyy50 AT hotpop DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2002 23:18:45 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: Oops?
Message-ID: <3D4C64D5.22202.6B6DA6F@localhost>
In-reply-to: <20020804053219.GA14708@redhat.com>
References: <5 DOT 1 DOT 0 DOT 14 DOT 2 DOT 20020803163839 DOT 01f9a9d0 AT pop3 DOT cris DOT com>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-description: Mail message body

On 4 Aug 2002 at 1:32, Christopher Faylor wrote:

> On Sat, Aug 03, 2002 at 04:47:58PM -0700, Randall R Schulz wrote:
> >Here's how Stephen might have come to the conclusion that the latest 
> >re-release of Cygwin (contained in the taball "cygwin-1.3.12-4.tar.bz2") is 
> >1.3.12-1:
> >
> >.../cygwin1.dll
> >        Properties (dialog)
> >                Version (tab)
> >                        Product Version (field)
> >                                1.3.12-cygwin-1-3-12-1
> >
> >For the record:
> >
> >% uname -a
> >CYGWIN_NT-5.0 CLEMENS 1.3.12(0.54/3/2) 2002-07-06 02:16 i686 unknown
> >
> >As to the timestamp Stephen reports, here's what the Properties dialog 
> >shows for this cygwin1.dll on my system:
> >
> >        Created: Yesterday, August 02, 2002, 14:01:38
> >        Modified: Friday, July 05, 2002, 23:19:25
> 
> Just in case there is any confusion, let me repeat it again:
> 
> The version that is currently available for download is the correct
> version.

Ok... but then why does the dll report an earlier version, 1.3.12-1 instead of 1.3.12-
2?

I'm not trying to flame you here, please don't get me wrong.  At the very least, the 
DLL is the same as was before.  You DID say that you had packaged an obsolete 
version of the DLL before; is it possible you did it again?  Just want to be sure 
about this.

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/