I had not noticed this was submitted to address@hidden This mailing list is obsolete (we use a bug-tracker instead now) and I don't know how many people might still read this list.
is the correct place for this conversation so I am going to reply to that list.
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 3:47 PM, datoner <address@hidden
>> I have successfully compiled Octave 3.2.4 and I am able to run with the
>> run-octave script.
>> However, when I do 'make install' to install the binaries in a directory I
>> have indicated during
>> running of 'configure', the octave that runs from install_dir/bin is NOT the
>> correct version. It is
>> in fact running the existing octave which is version 2.9.9.
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 8:05 AM, datoner <address@hidden
> $ octave-3.2.4 --version
> returns 2.9.9, e.g.
> GNU Octave, version 2.9.9 (x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu).
> Copyright (C) 2006 John W. Eaton.
> This is free software; see the source code for copying conditions.
> There is ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; not even for MERCHANTIBILITY or
> FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
This is really bizarre. What's the output of (assuming bash):
$ type octave-3.2.4
$ echo $PATH
What was your configure command when you built octave?
Did you download the source from octave.org
or is this packaged source from a distribution (e.g. srpm)?