delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi   search  
Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/2003/02/08/07:28:47

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?

- Raw text -


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