X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f
X-Received:	by 10.66.219.131 with SMTP id po3mr16151656pac.9.1440851217226;
	Sat, 29 Aug 2015 05:26:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received:	by 10.182.240.227 with SMTP id wd3mr235728obc.3.1440851217144;
	Sat, 29 Aug 2015 05:26:57 -0700 (PDT)
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Date:	Sat, 29 Aug 2015 05:26:56 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To:	<55E1891C.1070303@iki.fi>
Complaints-To:	groups-abuse AT google DOT com
Injection-Info:	glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=37.209.109.78;
	posting-account=OsAajgoAAADdKJnkJkmhzqP0jo6I_P_0
NNTP-Posting-Host:	37.209.109.78
References:	<201506091634 DOT t59GY0Bk000493 AT delorie DOT com> <55E17D7D DOT 4030406 AT gmx DOT de>
	<55E1891C DOT 1070303 AT iki DOT fi>
User-Agent:	G2/1.0
MIME-Version:	1.0
Message-ID:	<e68027b2-6473-42f6-b46d-7c321017280d@googlegroups.com>
Subject:	Re: ANNOUNCE: DJGPP 2.05 release candidate
From:	"Juan Manuel Guerrero (juan DOT guerrero AT gmx DOT de) [via djgpp AT delorie DOT com]" <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
Injection-Date:	Sat, 29 Aug 2015 12:26:57 +0000
Bytes:	5433
Lines:	94
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
X-MIME-Autoconverted:	from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id t7TCj25B003819
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

Am Samstag, 29. August 2015 12:27:59 UTC+2 schrieb Andris Pavenis (andris DOT pavenis AT iki DOT fi) [via djgpp AT delorie DOT com]:
> On 08/29/2015 12:38 PM, Juan Manuel Guerrero (juan DOT guerrero AT gmx DOT de) [via djgpp AT delorie DOT com] wrote:
> >
> > During this week-end I will update the complete DJGPP distribution to DJGPP 2.05.
> > This includes the rebuilding of all dj*zip archives so the lates changes of the
> > v2_05_1 branch is in the library and the moving of all new archives from the /beta
> > tree into the /current tree.  Obsolete archives from the /current tree will be moved
> > into the /deleted tree.  Obsolete archives from the /beta tree will be moved into
> > the /deleted/beta tree.  Nothing will be lost.
> >
> > I will keep the latest version of every compiler serie.  A compiler serie is defined
> > by its last version digit.  E.g. if there are gcc200, gcc201, gcc202, gcc205 then I
> > retain gcc205 and all the other ones will be moved into /deleted. Attention: gcc20X
> > is a different serie than gcc21X.  This has the consecuence that a lot of compiler
> > versions will remain in the /current directory.  If this is not wanted this is the
> > last occasion to speak.
> >
> > To fullfill this task I will use a slightly modified version of the script proposed in:
> > http://www.delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi?p=djgpp/2015/08/16/08:08:18
> > I have got neither a positive nor a negative reponse to that proposision so I will assume
> > that all agree and I will go ahead.
> >
> > I still have to do some preparations for all this, and that will take the rest of the day.
> > During this day I will wait for objections or suggestions and tomorrow I will update the
> > /current directory if there are no ____really serious____ objections.
> 
> I would still prefer collecting required stuff for v2.05 in a new directory:
> - needed files from beta gets MOVED to this directory
> - files from current gets COPIED
> 
> After that we can move current away and rename new directory as current. As the result we
> have complete old current somewhere else and new version replaces it as /ftp/djgpp/current.
> 
> I think that way is safer and one can have some short time (like a week) to see whether
> something more needs to be updated (of course replacement could be done also immediately after
> files are collected in the new directory)
> 
> About GCC versions:
> - 3.4.6, 4.7.4, 4.8.5, 4.9.3 and 5.2.0 should be in new current directory (that includes also 
> gpc-3.4.6)
> All gcc builds older than from this year can go to ftp/deleted/...
> 
> GMP, MPFR and MPC - perhaps only newest version should be kept
> 
> I should also sometimes build binutils-2.25 RPMs for /pub/ftp/rpms
> 
> Andris


The question arises how long should we collecting things that may be usefull for 2.05?
A month more? a year more? five years more?  And who decides what is worth to be collected or what needs to be ported to 2.05?

We are working on/announcing the update to 2.05 since a quarter of a year and we have made no real progress.  We are still collecting differnt updates of dj*.zip and other ports in /beta. If we wait until we considere that all "required" ports have been rebuild with DJGPP 2.05 then we will wait until the end of time.  Who dicides what is required?  Who decides what is nice to have?  And who will volunteer to do this endless job?
We should make a _definitive_ dead line to bring this to an end IMHO.  And, if at all, we should define an absolute _minimal_ number of packages that still needs to be ported.  Minimal means really required and certainly not nice to have.  IMHO minimal means all those ports required to build djdev from sources.  Everthing else is nice to have.  Minimal certaily does not mean having a DJGPP 2.05 version of a port of wat3222br2.zip or tiff403b.zip or lua or whatever else someone may have on his wish list for x-mas.  That are things that will be ported some day when someone (may be me) decides to sacrifice his spare time to do it.

Regards,
Juan M. Guerrero

- Raw text -