Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/2005/04/01/05:58:19
Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> From: Brian Inglis <Brian DOT Inglis AT SystematicSw DOT ab DOT ca>
>>
>> This needs cross checked carefully, but these should be all the old
>> revs in current that can be moved to deleted; saving a total of:
>> 487467 KB
>
> I'm not sure what you are saying. If you mean that every package
> should retain only its last version, then this is certainly not right:
> we keep some old versions for a good reason.
>
> So here's the list of packages that I _know_ should be retained
> (explanations available upon request):
>
> > v2gnu/em1934b.zip 1367 KB 1998-04-29
> > v2gnu/em1934d.zip 5731 KB 1997-05-03
> > v2gnu/em1934l1.zip 1400 KB 1997-10-27
> > v2gnu/em1934l2.zip 1400 KB 1997-12-29
> > v2gnu/em1934l3.zip 1338 KB 1997-10-27
> > v2gnu/em1934r1.zip 1409 KB 1997-12-29
> > v2gnu/em1934r2.zip 1412 KB 1997-10-27
> > v2gnu/em1934r3.zip 1338 KB 1997-10-27
> > v2gnu/em1934s1.zip 1419 KB 1997-12-29
> > v2gnu/em1934s2.zip 994 KB 1997-10-27
> > v2gnu/em1934s3.zip 1106 KB 1997-10-28
> > v2gnu/emacs19.README 10 KB 1998-04-29
> > v2gnu/pat21b.zip 70 KB 1996-10-19
> > v2gnu/pat21s.zip 87 KB 1996-10-19
>
> I think people who ported or developed the relevant packages should
> each state what versions need to be retained and which can be deleted.
> It's not wise to clean-sweep the repository without asking them.
I see, in DJ's list, only one version of gcc that has corresponding
versions of gnat and gpc available. Those should all be retained,
together with the corresponding g77 and g++.
We are talking about a CD, not about destroying versions, I trust.
--
"I conclude that there are two ways of constructing a software
design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously
no deficiencies and the other way is to make it so complicated
that there are no obvious deficiencies." -- C. A. R. Hoare
- Raw text -