Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>, <http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-developers-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
From:	Chris Faylor <cgf AT cygnus DOT com>
Date:	Sat, 18 Mar 2000 20:24:28 -0500
To:	cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Cc:	Mumit Khan <khan AT xraylith DOT wisc DOT EDU>
Subject:	Is binutils correct?
Message-ID:	<20000318202428.A1511@cygnus.com>
Reply-To:	cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cgf AT cygnus DOT com, cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com,
	Mumit Khan <khan AT xraylith DOT wisc DOT EDU>
Mime-Version:	1.0
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.1.8i

Whild downloading the most recent version of binutils and gcc from
the development snapshot, I noticed that the binutils date available
for download is older than another version that I'd downloaded from
Mumit's site.  The one available is:  binutils-19990818-1.tar.gz.

I had this sitting around in my download directory:
binutils-19990911.tar.gz

Mumit, which one should we be using.  I would think that the newer one was better.

cgf

- Raw text -