Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/1998/04/01/21:12:39
At 12:17 4/1/1998 GMT-1, Tom Demmer wrote:
>> I'm just wondering: Is there a reason why we can't (or don't) update the
>> DJDEV package between releases? Other packages (like, say, Fileutils) are
>> patched to fix egregious bugs and re-released without changing the version
>> number. Tom Demmer's patch site is great, but it seems silly to have to tell
>> people who come up against known bugs to go and fetch a non-standard library
>> from a non-standard place. I assume this is a matter of software philosophy,
>> but IMHO known bugs should be *fixed*.
>
>Agreed, for another reason:
>I am leaving university probably around end of May, beginning June,
>so I probably won't be able to keep this up, or even updated.
>AFAIK, my new employer does not have the resources for that kind of
>service.
Seems to me that the logical place for it is delorie.com. I don't think DJ
runs an FTP server yet, but even HTTP would be a start.
>What speaks against new releases IMHO is that the patches must be
>bullet proof, I can reproduce and check a few of the fixes, but for
>some I just have to believe they work. The one you mention is a
>release candidate, others *might* be unstable. Most of them come from
>Eli, so I guess one can just blindly apply them. I consider this
>service like something between alpha and beta releases.
Okay, I see your point. It is rather a fine line. All in all, I guess the
status quo makes sense.
>And, instead of telling people "get this or that patch" you end up
>telling people "get the latest libc". This makes the impression that
>libc is much more buggy than it really is.
Possibly, although it does keep new users from ever seeing the bug. That's
what I had in mind, but the current system is fine, I guess.
Nate Eldredge
eldredge AT ap DOT net
- Raw text -