delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi   search  
Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/2001/12/15/18:43:31

X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mailnull set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f
X-Authentication-Warning: new-smtp2.ihug.com.au: Host p73-tnt7.syd.ihug.com.au [203.173.144.73] claimed to be acceleron
Message-ID: <005701c185c2$19bf94a0$0102a8c0@acceleron>
From: "Andrew Cottrell" <acottrel AT ihug DOT com DOT au>
To: "Charles Sandmann" <sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu>
Cc: <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
References: <10112150424 DOT AA14812 AT clio DOT rice DOT edu>
Subject: Re: Refresh Proposal
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 10:41:33 +1100
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

> > > I'm sure there are some other suggestions
> > Only one addition that I can think of that may make a difference if
people
> > want to re-build thinks, that is :-
> >     Bash 2.04
2.04 builds out of the source using the 2.03 files. I still don't like using
it on 2K or XP as it has limitations to do with the path. The 2.05 needs a
small change  to the 2.03 LIBC in order for it to build. (process.c If I
recall correctly from last weekend).

> This one intimidated me (2.04 vs 2.05, package replacements for libc, etc)
> vs a straight compile.  I'd need advice.
I't a double edged sword. If you use Bash 2.04 then you will find issues
under 2K & XP, but Bash 2.05 can't be built from the sources with LIBC
2.03!!! After I check out the LIBC 2.03 update I will see if it is feasible
to use a modified Bash 2.05 sources with LIBC 2.03.

> > > It turns out I have binaries to repackage all of the above done except
> > > bnu2112b.  With the above list done the goal would be to make Win2K/XP
> > > self hosting again via simtel - if something is broken then the user
> > > could fix it himself with a recompile/build of a package.
> > 100% agree, but they propbably won't re-build the packages, instead they
> > will compain that package X doesn't work on 2K or XP. If this occurs
then it
> > may be worth updateding these packages as and when required.
>
> Today people have a good excuse for not trying to rebuild.  Admittedly
> some people might complain, but others will refresh a build as part of
> the project if they see problems.  I'm not saying they don't get replaced,
> I'm just saying that *I* don't do it on the first pass :-)
100% agree.

> Today, if a package doesn't do certain things (like spawning, renaming to
> existing files, special handle ops, etc) the 2.03 images work fine on
W2K/XP.


- Raw text -


  webmaster     delorie software   privacy  
  Copyright © 2019   by DJ Delorie     Updated Jul 2019