delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi   search  
Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/1999/08/30/07:17:07

Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 12:23:48 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Andris Pavenis <pavenis AT lanet DOT lv>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: gcc 2.95 distribution
In-Reply-To: <Pine.A41.4.05.9908301028140.66040-100000@ieva01.lanet.lv>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.990830121155.12471D-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Mon, 30 Aug 1999, Andris Pavenis wrote:

> Simply I tried to get them in 8+3 filename limitations. Some packages have
> *.inf (eg. gzip124ab.zip) but some *.info.

gzip124a was released before v2.02, and info/DIR from v2.01 mentioned 
"gzip.inf".  That's why Gzip has the short file name there: I didn't want 
the users to be unable to read the docs on LFN systems.

We switched to *.info in v2.02, and removed the extensions from  all the 
file names in DIR.  So packages that are released from then on should use 
.info.

> Currently both works.

Is this true for all Info readers (RHIDE, SETEdit, InfView, etc.)?  I 
know Emacs and the stand-alone Info do support both, but that's because 
there's some special code there to do that.

> I can omit renaming *.info to *.inf if needed in future. Is it really
> necessary?

It isn't necessary, it just makes Info load the file faster (since .info 
is looked for first), and makes the distribution more uniform (well, 
eventually, when all of them use .info file names).

> > 	- The file gxx-int.info is not in gcc295b.zip; I think it should 
> > 	  be.
> 
> It is not built when building gcc.

Isn't this a bug in GCC?

Anyway, I only payed attention to this because somebody once asked a 
question on c.o.m.d. about how do C++ exceptions work, and Robert replied 
that gxx-int explains that and that it wasn't in gcc281b.zip by omission.

> > 	- The libg++ library distribution is called lgpp295b.zip, whereas 
> > 	  all previous versions used lgpNNNb.zip (one `p').  Can we 
> > 	  please go back to "lgp", for uniformity (and also for 2.95.1, where 
> > 	  we will need the extra character)?
> > 
> 
> It's already done for 2.95.1 which is not yet uploaded.

Thanks.

- Raw text -


  webmaster     delorie software   privacy  
  Copyright © 2019   by DJ Delorie     Updated Jul 2019