Date:	Mon, 25 Jun 2001 13:42:55 +0300 (IDT)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	Andris Pavenis <pavenis AT lanet DOT lv>
cc:	lauras AT softhome DOT net, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: gcc 3.0 released
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.A41.4.05.10106250849350.16634-100000@ieva06.lanet.lv>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1010625134143.2185D-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
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 Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Andris Pavenis wrote:

> > We must have been talking about different solutions - as I see it, both
> > updated djdev203.zip and new gcc30b.zip should provide the updated 
> > lib/djgpp.djl at the same location. This way it doesn't matter which file
> > overwrites the other one. Does it sound better now?
> 
> I suggested to temporary change name of linker script and supply the new
> one with GCC-3.0. So I make sure the incompatible one from djdev203.zip
> will never be used with these binaries of GCC-3.0. As result there is no
> need to update djdev203.zip now and there will be no danger of unpacking
> archives in wrong order.

What happens if one of the next Binutils releases needs to change the 
script?

- Raw text -