Date:	Fri, 19 Jan 2001 13:45:56 +0200
From:	"Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender:	halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To:	pjfarley AT banet DOT net
Message-Id:	<4634-Fri19Jan2001134555+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer:	Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.3.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.6
CC:	ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to:	<5.0.2.1.0.20010118215856.027b66b0@pop5.banet.net>
	(pjfarley AT banet DOT net)
Subject:	Re: Fw: Patch for statfs.c
References:	<5 DOT 0 DOT 2 DOT 1 DOT 0 DOT 20010117211305 DOT 03654860 AT pop5 DOT banet DOT net> <5 DOT 0 DOT 2 DOT 1 DOT 0 DOT 20010118215856 DOT 027b66b0 AT pop5 DOT banet DOT net>
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

> Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 22:09:53 -0500
> From: "Peter J. Farley III" <pjfarley AT banet DOT net>
> 
> System file checker reports many, many, many differences.  So many that 
> I will have to spend a considerable amount of time one of these days 
> Real Soon Now (tm) verifying that the new versions are all "good".

Anyone who cares about the stability of their system is well advised
to look at SFC's reports from time to time, especially after
installing something.

> At least all I have checked so far are more recent and have a higher
> version number than the "originals" delivered with my system.

Unfortunately, a newer version doesn't always mean a better one...

- Raw text -