Re: [Cooker] kinkatta-0.94?

2001-10-18 Thread Digital Wokan

Guess I'll have to test that one and recompile it for 8.1.  (Now I just
have to go look up how to submit an "unsupported".)

Salane King wrote:
> 
> Re-uploading new upgrade from cvs 20011017 =kinkatta-0.99-3mdk
> 
> On Wednesday 17 October 2001 08:07 pm, you wrote:
> > Oh.  Whoops.  I think I'll touch up the source and recompile that.
> >
> > Salane King wrote:
> > > It is from the cvs version and the label wasn't updated in the program.
> > >
> > > On Wednesday 17 October 2001 03:05 pm, you wrote:
> > > > Why is the package numbered 0.94 when the binary is labeled as being
> > > > version 0.91?  Should the package be renamed and then people just
> > > > uninstall / reinstall the package (since a -Fvh or -Uvh would see 0.94
> > > > as newer)?




Re: [Cooker] kinkatta-0.94?

2001-10-17 Thread Salane King

Re-uploading new upgrade from cvs 20011017 =kinkatta-0.99-3mdk

On Wednesday 17 October 2001 08:07 pm, you wrote:
> Oh.  Whoops.  I think I'll touch up the source and recompile that.
>
> Salane King wrote:
> > It is from the cvs version and the label wasn't updated in the program.
> >
> > On Wednesday 17 October 2001 03:05 pm, you wrote:
> > > Why is the package numbered 0.94 when the binary is labeled as being
> > > version 0.91?  Should the package be renamed and then people just
> > > uninstall / reinstall the package (since a -Fvh or -Uvh would see 0.94
> > > as newer)?