🚀 go-pugleaf

>>>>> On 15 Mar 2002 07:47:54 GMT, those who know me have no need of my name <not-a-real-address@usa.net> said:

  those> <y48q4rjji28o.fsf@dib.cisco.com> divulged:
  >>>>>>> On 23 Feb 2002 22:14:13 GMT, those who know me have no need of my
  >>>>>>> name <not-a-real-address@usa.net> said:
  those> <y48q4rk9osjq.fsf@dib.cisco.com> divulged:

  >>> Ok, I fetched and installed the most recent version of bbdb 2.34.
  >>> for some reason the version in the xemacs packages is really old???

  those> is 2.32 really that old?

  >> I get something like 1.14 from the xemacs packages list.

  those> that's probably the xemacs package version, not the `author version.'  (the
  those> former tracks the revision as an xemacs package, the later is whatever the
  those> author intends.)  if you are using the `list & install' interface you can
  those> place point (the cursor in essence) on the bbdb line then type ``i'' to see
  those> the author version of any package.

  those> btw: package 1.17 (bbdb 2.32) is current, and package 1.19 (bbdb 2.34) is
  those> in test.  since you've already installed bbdb 2.34 on your own this is
  those> probably moot, but if you wanted it installed still under xemacs package
  those> management you could grab the package from the `pre-releases' site.

Thanks for the info.  I was not aware of the different version numbers.
Now it all makes more sense.

Dave.

-- 

      A
-----/|\-----------------------------------------------+
-   / | \    Dave Bergum            <bergum@cisco.com> |
-  /__|__\   408 St. Peter St.      Gab: (651)726-2324 |
- j---'---/  Suite 600 [stpaul1]    Fax: (651)726-2350 |
-~~~~~~~~~~  St. Paul, MN  55102   Cell: (612)723-7135 |
-------------------------------------------------------+