| delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
| Date: | Sat, 08 Feb 2003 14:23:20 +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-Sat08Feb2003142320+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: | <3E44F9B6.3090901@mif.vu.lt> (message from Laurynas Biveinis on |
| Sat, 08 Feb 2003 13:36:06 +0100) | |
| Subject: | Re: Remove a bit of cruft from readme.1st |
| References: | <3E44F9B6 DOT 3090901 AT mif DOT vu DOT lt> |
| 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: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 13:36:06 +0100 > From: Laurynas Biveinis <laurynas DOT biveinis AT mif DOT vu DOT lt> > > IMHO information about v1.x should not belong to readme.1st nowadays. Why? Will having those 6 lines do any harm? Are we sure no one will ever upgrade from v1.x anymore?
| webmaster | delorie software privacy |
| Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |