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" To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 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: 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 > 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/