Date:	Tue, 12 Dec 2000 20:45:57 +0200
From:	"Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender:	halo1 AT ZAHAV DOT NET DOT IL
To:	"Tim Van Holder" <tim DOT van DOT holder AT pandora DOT be>
Message-Id:	<9003-Tue12Dec2000204557+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer:	Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.3.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.6
CC:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to:	<NBBBIOJKJBNCHJBEKHLOEEEKCCAA.tim.van.holder@pandora.be>
Subject:	Re: Locking fcntl changes #2
References:	<NBBBIOJKJBNCHJBEKHLOEEEKCCAA DOT tim DOT van DOT holder AT pandora DOT be>
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

> From: "Tim Van Holder" <tim DOT van DOT holder AT pandora DOT be>
> Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 18:49:06 +0100
> 
> > > +/* B5h (181) */ "(MS-DOS 7.0) A valid eject request failed",
> > > +/* B5h (181) */ "(DOS 5.0-6.0,NetWare4) Invalid call gate",
> > Same here.
> But both are valid (and distinct) MS-DOS errors - which should
> DJGPP support 'better' - DOS 5/6 or DOS 7?

The first message looks like a better alternative; the second one
seems bogus (``Invalid call gate'' is something from protected mode,
what does DOS 5 have to do with that?).

But my comment was meant to say that if we keep both strings, the
association between the error codes and the corresponding strings is
incorrect for all error codes following this duplicate entry.  So one
of the entries has to go.

> > "dup" should have a @code markup, and please also add an @xref.  Also,
> > we don't use the (n) notation for commands and functions (because the
> > references aren't man pages), so please remove "(2)" in the above.
> I think he meant a call of dup() with a parameter of 2 (i.e. stdout).

No, the context clearly shows that the text (lifted from some man
page, I suppose) was talking about _any_ call to dup().

- Raw text -