From:	sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann)
Message-Id:	<10206151751.AA18505@clio.rice.edu>
Subject:	Re: Clio 2.04 packages
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date:	Sat, 15 Jun 2002 12:51:18 -0500 (CDT)
In-Reply-To:	<2110-Sat15Jun2002190312+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il> from "Eli Zaretskii" at Jun 15, 2002 07:03:12 PM
X-Mailer:	ELM [version 2.5 PL2]
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

> > With the concensus that we should be figuring out what goes into the 2.04
> > and 2.05 releases I think that we should also have (if time and resources
> > permit) a parallel project that also works on getting a set of updated
> > packages ready for the release at the same time as 2.04.
> 
> That's true, mainly because v2.04 will support symlinks, and that
> requires all ports to be relinked, otherwise a combination of old and
> new binaries will be subtly broken.

I'm not sure this is as much of a problem as is stated here.  Any symlinks
would be unusable by old images - but they would also be unusable by 
any non DJGPP toolchain program.  So, I don't believe this is that big
an issue; and I don't believe symlinks will be used that much since they
aren't supported by the base OS or other tools.

(I wasn't around during the development, and haven't read the back
discussions on this, so forgive me if this has all been covered...
Why wasn't something like windows .lnk format chosen?  Why remove the 
old EXE stubing type symlink - how to run these from command prompt?
Some sort of documentation on symlinks?)

> Please note that rebuilt packages should be at least reconfigured and
> sometimes will need source changes due to the symlink support.

Why?  Because of non-DJGPP tool chain support I would suspect we would
want to minimize symlink use to portability/testing support.

- Raw text -