Date:	Fri, 11 Dec 1998 08:48:38 -0500 (EST)
From:	Frank Donahoe <fdonahoe AT wilkes1 DOT wilkes DOT edu>
To:	DJGPP List <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
Cc:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>, alextxm AT tin DOT it
Subject:	Patched Archives, was Re: DJGPP 2.02/GCC 2.8.1 ...
Message-Id:	<Pine.A32.3.96.981211081730.115224A-100000@wilkes1.wilkes.edu>
Mime-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

On 10 Dec 1998, Eli Zaretskii replied to Alessandro Pisani:

> On Wed, 9 Dec 1998, Alessandro Pisani wrote:

>> why don't you change also the version num
>> (like 2.8.1.1 or 2.8.1a or 2.8.1plX (patch-levelX) etc) when you
>> re-update a fixed version of a package ?

> We can't change the version numbers of GNU packages, as it would
> create a terrible confusion.  For example, if you call a patched
> version 2.8.1.1, and the GNU maintainers release their version with
> the same number, what do we do then?

> Also, longer version names, like 2.8.1.plX, which could help the above
> problem, are impossible because the zip file names have to fit into
> the DOS 8+3 limits.

Zip archives do no care by what name they are called.  So long as the
file name truncates properly to fit the DOS 8+3 limit there are no
technical reasons why the patch level could not be included in an
extended archive name.  If some mirror sites do not support long
file names, their clients would be no worse off than now.  Most of
us could benefit from this change.

> The drill is to watch the announcements of updated uploads and
> upgrade.

In the best of all possible worlds ...  For the case where these
are missed a back-up process is needed.

Regards,
Frank

- Raw text -