From:	sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann)
Message-Id:	<10210131548.AA13878@clio.rice.edu>
Subject:	Re: djdev 2.03 refresh mk2 and GCC 3.2 ?
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date:	Sun, 13 Oct 2002 10:48:32 -0500 (CDT)
In-Reply-To:	<567968082.20021013124019@softhome.net> from "Laurynas Biveinis" at Oct 13, 2002 12:40:19 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

> > Do you have revision 1.4 of src/mkdoc/Makefile?
> 
> Nope. I want to compile 2.03, not 2.04. 

So 2.03 won't build with newer GCC out of the box.  Makefiles need
to be changed.  So now we know...

> I have refresh mk1 (as I was unable to find djlsr203.zip saying 
> it's mk2) with headers from refresh mk2. 

That's correct.  There were no source changes in June, so I didn't
refresh this zip.  It has a stale readme.1st, should get updated
manifests - but that's been really low priority.

The current djcrx203 is still refresh 1 also (this is bad); the tags
in cvs for 203_1 haven't been updated either.

The current djdev203 was done by hand insert of the 7 files; the
mailing list problems with GCC 3.2 were getting out of hand.

> So the ability to compile 2.03 with 3.2 still concerns me. If the
> changes are minimal, why not to fix djlsr203.zip? (I wish I could
> volunteer, unfortunately my free time does not allow that :(

My employer is currently imploding, so until the situation stablizes
I don't have time to fix it yet either.  We keep hoping 2.04 will 
get out first ...

If the makefile changes don't break building with older GCCs then
I have no problems with retagging/refreshing the source zip - time
permitting.

I haven't had time to update my refresh page about 2.03; if I find
time I'll add a note about building with newer GCC.

(Yes, everything is chaos).

- Raw text -