Date:	Mon, 03 Feb 2003 20:13:13 +0200
From:	"Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender:	halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Message-Id:	<7458-Mon03Feb2003201313+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer:	emacs 21.3.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
In-reply-to:	<3E3E56D6.321DB98D@phekda.freeserve.co.uk> (message from Richard
	Dawe on Mon, 03 Feb 2003 11:47:34 +0000)
Subject:	Re: /djgpp/manifest
References:	<10302030533 DOT AA14786 AT clio DOT rice DOT edu> <3E3E56D6 DOT 321DB98D AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
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

> Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 11:47:34 +0000
> From: Richard Dawe <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
>  
> > Maybe the 2.03 files should have been checked in here (they never
> > were) - but that's a separate issue.
> 
> I don't think they should be put there either. The build procedure puts the
> right manifest/version/DSM files in the ZIPs.
> 
> If you're using CVS, you probably know which version of DJGPP you're using and
> don't need the version file. ;)

I don't think manifest/* files are only for human consumption.  IIRC,
there are some programs that look at them.  So maybe we do need to
check-in the recent evrsions of those files into the CVS.

- Raw text -