Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/2002/06/16/02:55:41
> > 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.
100% agree. Old binaries do not like the new symlinks and it becomes a pain
to find out what binary is at fault. It is easy to do now that the CVS is
labelled 2.04 and you can grep the binary files for 2.03 (or 2.02 or 2.01).
> > As I see it the following packages need to be updated / released /
re-built
> > with the 2.04 release :-
>
> Can you tell why did you pick up those and not the others, especially
> given my comment about symlinks above?
The reason for these was so that I could use the following packages:-
a) Latest GCC, was 2.9.5.3 then 3.x ... then 3.04 then and now 3.1
b) Latest Bash 2.05 as the 2.04 was way to hard to get working and the
2.05 was allot easier
c) Setedit - needed for Rhide
d) Rhide - I have used Rhide since it first appeared as I like IDEs. I
was a BC++ DOS user before DJGPP.
e) Allegro - Needed for some of the graphics programs I have written
over the years.
f) I use indent to reformat source code if I cannot read it or the
format is all over the place
g) I needed patch as I was using and producing patches
and finally
g) I like the unix shell utilites as they are so handy, so diff, find
and shell utils.
Once I started with this list as I started to build them I found that I
needed some more packages in order to build the ones above and the list is
what I finished up with. The execption to this is tar as I needed to untar a
file and I thought I should update it.
> Please note that rebuilt packages should be at least reconfigured and
> sometimes will need source changes due to the symlink support.
I have not found that I have had to do any reconfiguring or source code
changes to any of the packages, but then again I have not fully tested
symlinks. Some of the packages install the new symlinks instead of the old
ones in the bin directory. So far I have not had any problems with symlinks,
except last year when mixing old and new exes with new symlinks.
- Raw text -