[AG-TECH] BOUNCE ag-tech at mcs.anl.gov: Non-member submission from [Douglas Baggett <dbaggett at nsf.gov>] (fwd)

[Bob Olson]

doug, please check that you're sending from the address you're subscribed
to ag-tech with.


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 15:03:07 -0600
From: owner-ag-tech at mcs.anl.gov
To: owner-ag-tech at mcs.anl.gov
Subject: BOUNCE ag-tech at mcs.anl.gov:    Non-member submission from [Douglas
    Baggett <dbaggett at nsf.gov>]   

Received: from lapp1.cise-nsf.gov (lapp1.cise-nsf.gov [192.12.209.21])
	by mcs.anl.gov (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA133966
	for <ag-tech at mcs.anl.gov>; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 15:03:04 -0600
Received: from nsf.gov (db-cise-worksta.cise-nsf.gov [192.12.209.224])
	(authenticated)
	by lapp1.cise-nsf.gov (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA7L2ld03010;
	Thu, 7 Nov 2002 16:02:47 -0500
Message-ID: <3DCAD4F3.3060700 at nsf.gov>
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 16:02:43 -0500
From: Douglas Baggett <dbaggett at nsf.gov>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tom Coffin <tcoffin at ncsa.uiuc.edu>
CC: ag-tech at mcs.anl.gov, dgatchel at nsf.gov
Subject: Re: [AG-TECH] Differences in VIC RPM's
References: <3.0.5.32.20021107145147.00fd27c8 at pop.ncsa.uiuc.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests= version=2.21
X-Spam-Level: 

3.4? The pakcage on my vidcap says 1.1.3-5, the latest rpm at 
http://www-unix.mcs.anl.gov/~olson/AG/Software/Linux/RPMS/ 
<http://www-unix.mcs.anl.gov/%7Eolson/AG/Software/Linux/RPMS/> is 
ucl-vic-2.8ucl4-5.i386.rpm

Or probably I am misunderstanding your reference somehow.....

-Doug Baggett
CISE/NSF/OAD

Tom Coffin wrote:

>3.4
>
>
>At 02:22 PM 11/7/2002 -0500, Douglas Baggett wrote:
>   >Can anybody point out to me the differences between
>   >
>   >ucl-vic-2.8ucl1.1.3-5
>   >
>   >and
>   >
>   >ucl-vic-2.8ucl4-5
>   >
>   >I was looking at the packages on my vidcap system and comparing them 
>   >with the list of RPMS at ANL and was wondering if it might be worth the 
>   >upgrade, not to mention safe since I am running RH 7.3?
>   >
>   >Thanks
>   >
>   >-Doug Baggett
>   >CISE/NSF/OAD
>   >
>   >
>
>
>___________________________________________________________
>Tom Coffin .......................... tcoffin at ncsa.uiuc.edu
>  
>