Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 15:31:00 +0200 From: Corinna Vinschen To: Cygwin Subject: Re: Cygwin patch numbers Message-ID: <20030423133100.GB11137@cygbert.vinschen.de> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: Cygwin References: <000201c30915$dcf96180$5c16989e AT oemcomputer> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <000201c30915$dcf96180$5c16989e@oemcomputer> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 08:19:20AM +0100, Peter S Tillier wrote: > Folks, > > I notice that the Cygwin developers use a standard naming convention for > the packages containing, for example gawk and sed. This convention is > based upon the tool's version number and various patch levels, such as: > > gawk-3.1.2-2.tar.bz2 > > However when gawk --version is executed the version number only displays > as 3.1.2 (the GNU awk version/patch number). Would it be possible for > the Cygwin patch number (the -2 above) to be included in the version > number for each tool/package please? Why should packages on Cygwin show another version number than the same package on e. g. Linux? For instance the grep package: linux$ rpm -q grep grep-2.4.2-6 linux$ grep --version grep (GNU grep) 2.4.2 [...] Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Developer mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat, Inc. -- 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/