From:	pavenis AT lanet DOT lv
To:	"Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date:	Fri, 22 Jun 2001 18:38:56 +0300
MIME-Version:	1.0
Subject:	Re: gcc 3.0 released
Message-ID:	<3B3390C0.14539.AB3453@localhost>
In-reply-to:	<1858-Fri22Jun2001152251+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
References:	<3B334F21 DOT 5415 DOT EB76DE AT localhost> (pavenis AT lanet DOT lv)
X-mailer:	Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c)
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

On 22 Jun 2001, at 15:22, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> > From: pavenis AT lanet DOT lv
> > Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 13:58:57 +0300
> > 
> > I'm sure having 2 incompatible files with the same name is 
> > going to cause more problems rather than temporary changing the 
> > name
> 
> I don't agree with this assessment of the relative dangers in the two
> alternatives.
> 
> > What I suggesting is to temporary use linker script with a slightly 
> > different name before djdev204.zip will be released
> 
> How is this different from uploading a fixed djdev203.zip now?

I agree with other messages suggesting to drop djgpp.djl after some 
time, but we are not ready to do that now. So I suggest to include GCC
specific version in GCC-3.0 binary distribution up to time when we'll be 
able to remove it at all. It's best to name it differently to always use
file supplied with gcc but never one from djdev203.zip.

This really requires fixing only one package (GCC). Fixing djgpp.djl in
djdev203.zip simultanously requires fixing 2 packages and there will
be poeple who will get gcc-3.0 only and will cause possiblilty to mess 
things up. And there will be poeple who will cry why all their C++ 
applications using libstdcxx.a are crashing. By providing linker script 
with different name inside gcc30b.zip we'll avoid that.

Andris

- Raw text -