Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/2001/12/15/18:43:31
> > > I'm sure there are some other suggestions
> > Only one addition that I can think of that may make a difference if
people
> > want to re-build thinks, that is :-
> > Bash 2.04
2.04 builds out of the source using the 2.03 files. I still don't like using
it on 2K or XP as it has limitations to do with the path. The 2.05 needs a
small change to the 2.03 LIBC in order for it to build. (process.c If I
recall correctly from last weekend).
> This one intimidated me (2.04 vs 2.05, package replacements for libc, etc)
> vs a straight compile. I'd need advice.
I't a double edged sword. If you use Bash 2.04 then you will find issues
under 2K & XP, but Bash 2.05 can't be built from the sources with LIBC
2.03!!! After I check out the LIBC 2.03 update I will see if it is feasible
to use a modified Bash 2.05 sources with LIBC 2.03.
> > > It turns out I have binaries to repackage all of the above done except
> > > bnu2112b. With the above list done the goal would be to make Win2K/XP
> > > self hosting again via simtel - if something is broken then the user
> > > could fix it himself with a recompile/build of a package.
> > 100% agree, but they propbably won't re-build the packages, instead they
> > will compain that package X doesn't work on 2K or XP. If this occurs
then it
> > may be worth updateding these packages as and when required.
>
> Today people have a good excuse for not trying to rebuild. Admittedly
> some people might complain, but others will refresh a build as part of
> the project if they see problems. I'm not saying they don't get replaced,
> I'm just saying that *I* don't do it on the first pass :-)
100% agree.
> Today, if a package doesn't do certain things (like spawning, renaming to
> existing files, special handle ops, etc) the 2.03 images work fine on
W2K/XP.
- Raw text -