X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mailnull set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f
X-Authentication-Warning:	acp3bf.physik.rwth-aachen.de: broeker owned process doing -bs
Date:	Tue, 4 Dec 2001 15:26:30 +0100 (MET)
From:	Hans-Bernhard Broeker <broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de>
X-Sender:	broeker AT acp3bf
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
cc:	eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il
Subject:	Re: Distribution issues (was: Re: Building a profiled version of
	libc)
In-Reply-To:	<10112032126.AA14791@clio.rice.edu>
Message-ID:	<Pine.LNX.4.10.10112041524230.8994-100000@acp3bf>
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, 3 Dec 2001, Charles Sandmann wrote:

> > And the problem is that specs is in the GCC distribution, while
> > libc_p.a, if we decide to distribute one, will be in djdev.
> > 
> > What I was saying was that these two changes must be in sync,
> > otherwise users will have broken installations.  At the very least,
> > we must release djdev with libc_p.a first, and modify specs some time
> > after that.
> 
> When we refresh 2.03, should we put a stub libc_p.a in there?  

No. More precisely, a stub is needed only if all of the following
were true:

* we agree that we should have libc_p.a in DJGPP soon
* therefore, we release a GCC build with a modified specs file that
   calls upon libc_p.a to be there
* we fail to build a real libc_p.a for a DJDEV released *before* that
   GCC one.

-- 
Hans-Bernhard Broeker (broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de)
Even if all the snow were burnt, ashes would remain.

- Raw text -