Mail Archives: djgpp/2003/03/10/06:45:15
Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT elta DOT co DOT il> wrote:
> The v2.03 refreshes were prepared _precisely_ to remove the need for
> telling users how to fix this problem (and quite a few others).
I agree with this, but I do *not* agree with the apparent removal of
the relevant section of the GCC README.DJ file.
The patch instruction mentioning va_list used to be in there, unless
memory fails me badly. Now the newest GCC binaries just assume you
have updated djdev203.zip installed, but tell the user neither how to
verify that fact, nor even mention the keyword "va_list" any more.
If updated djdev203.zip is now a necessity to run the default GCC
binary distributed, then I'd say it's time to face the facts and
release that thing as djdev204.zip. It just doesn't make much sense
to believe that people will update their djdev203.zip with a file of
the same name if the only hint that they should do this is hidden in
the README.DJ of the GCC package. People need a stronger incentive to
update than that.
--
Hans-Bernhard Broeker (broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de)
Even if all the snow were burnt, ashes would remain.
- Raw text -