From:	Andris Pavenis <pavenis AT latnet DOT lv>
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com, CBFalconer <cbfalconer AT yahoo DOT com>
Subject:	Re: [pavenis AT latnet DOT lv: Possible outdated files in DJGPP distribution]
Date:	Mon, 7 Oct 2002 12:28:35 +0300
User-Agent:	KMail/1.4.7
References:	<200210011738 DOT g91HceX19604 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <3D99FBA6 DOT B53B6E1E AT yahoo DOT com>
In-Reply-To:	<3D99FBA6.B53B6E1E@yahoo.com>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Message-Id:	<200210071228.35745.pavenis@latnet.lv>
X-MIME-Autoconverted:	from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id g979STI10104
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

On Tuesday 01 October 2002 22:46, CBFalconer wrote:
> DJ Delorie wrote:
> > IIRC there was a reason for keeping 2.95.2... ?
>
> Don't know about 2.95.2, but gcc 2.95.3 is needed for any
> installation of gpc at present.

[Was away from an e-mail for almost a week]

I only mentioned gcc-2.95.2 and GPC archives that depend on gcc-2.95.2. I 
think we should keep one version from each series (gcc-2.95.3, gcc-3.0.4, 
gcc-3.1, ...) only. 

Just a thought: maybe with time it could be usefull to arrange a "DJGPP 
museum" for outdated versions (so if one needs them it is still possible to 
get them). I don't think it should take a much bandwidth, perhaps mostly 
only disk space. 

Andris

- Raw text -