Mail Archives: djgpp/1998/02/19/09:00:27
"John M. Aldrich" <fighteer AT cs DOT com> writes:
> In the current DJGPP version (2.01), the DJGPP macro is set to 2 and
> DJGPP_MINOR is set to 1. It seems to me that this could lead to serious
> ambiguities should v2.x ever creep above .09. However, at least at
> present, when you see someone referring to 2.1, they mean 2.01.
In 2.10, DJGPP_MINOR will be set to 10. DJGPP uses two-digit numbers,
so 2.1 is an invalid version because of the ambiguity. The current
rev is 2.01; nine revs from now would be 2.10.
For those who are interested, we have been working on 2.02 (no release
date predictions yet). One of the qualifications for getting a test
version of 2.02 is that you have to be able to find it yourself :-)
> Oh, and disguising your email address when asking for information is
> very impolite.
While I understand your opinion on this, I DO NOT approve of people
picking on other people in this forum because of their choices in
anti-spam measures. This forum is distributed via newsgroup and
email; people posting here are expected to be able to read responses
via news or subscribe a valid email address to the mailing list.
Providing a proper email address in posts IS NOT REQUIRED.
If you are replying via the mailing list, and anti-spam addresses
bother you, DON'T REPLY, or let the reply bounce (as long as you send
to the mailing list too). Just do what you normally do, and if the
reply bounces because of an invalid address, ignore it. It's the
originator's decision, let them worry about finding your reply.
This forum is for talking about DJGPP. Posts and replies about djgpp
are welcome and encouraged. Posts about spam and anti-spam belong in
news.admin.net-abuse.misc. I respect people's rights to hide their
email address on this forum. I respect people's rights to be annoyed
by it. I do not respect (nor recognize) any right to harass people
about it.
DJ
- Raw text -