X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mailnull set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f
Sender:	rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk
Message-ID:	<3CCBEBB8.564B9B4D@phekda.freeserve.co.uk>
Date:	Sun, 28 Apr 2002 13:31:52 +0100
From:	Richard Dawe <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.19 i586)
X-Accept-Language:	de,fr
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	"Mark E." <snowball3 AT bigfoot DOT com>
CC:	DJGPP workers <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>,
	Zippo Workers <zippo-workers AT yahoogroups DOT com>
Subject:	Problems with binutils 2.11.2's DSMs
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

Hello.

I tried to install binutils 2.11.2 binaries the other day using zippo. But it
failed, complaining about bnu2112a.zip (I can't remember the exact error
message). Looking at bnu2112b.zip & bnu2112a.zip, I see that both have a DSM
for 'binutils 2.11.2 (binaries)'. But they do not describe the same package,
since bnu2112b.zip contains the binutils binaries and bnu2112a.zip contains
binutils libraries (libbfd, etc.).

I suggest that one of the two following changes should be made:

1. bnu2112a.zip has a DSM that describes it as some other package, e.g.
'binutils-libs 2.11.2 (binaries)'. This would reference binutils 2.11.2 as its
source package.

2. Don't include a DSM in bnu2112a.zip and make bnu2112b.zip's DSM include
bnu2112a.zip in its list of DSMs.

I prefer option 1, since not everyone who wants binutils also libbfd, etc.

What do you think?

Thanks, bye, Rich =]

-- 
Richard Dawe [ http://www.phekda.freeserve.co.uk/richdawe/ ]

- Raw text -