Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 11:21:34 +0200
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Message-Id: <8296-Sat08Mar2003112133+0200-eliz@elta.co.il>
X-Mailer: emacs 21.3.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
In-reply-to: <3E695102.A3C7FD22@yahoo.com> (message from CBFalconer on Sat, 08
	Mar 2003 02:33:39 GMT)
Subject: Re: Compiling GRX 245
References: <002101c2e3fc$181e0700$0300a8c0 AT rivasaiicfa DOT com DOT ar> <b47tt5$ep5$1 AT nets3 DOT rz DOT RWTH-Aachen DOT DE> <3E67AEC5 DOT 9AF3CA27 AT yahoo DOT com> <200303062110 DOT h26LAJD32316 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <3E6879B8 DOT 92765D5A AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk> <3e68f75a DOT sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu> <3E695102 DOT A3C7FD22 AT yahoo DOT com>
Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT elta DOT co DOT il>
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

> From: CBFalconer <cbfalconer AT yahoo DOT com>
> Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
> Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 02:33:39 GMT
> > 
> > The differences between refresh 1 and refresh 2 are in:
> > http://clio.rice.edu/djgpp/v203u2/djdev203_u2.zip
> 
> This is all academic, but the only thing in that that could be
> applicable is readme.1st, which is dated 2002-3-5, and has no list
> of changes, etc.

The README file is not supposed to have a list of changes.

> The only point I am making is that the OP did not have much of a
> chance.

The OP should have searched this forum for related articles.

The v2.03 refreshes were prepared _precisely_ to remove the need for
telling users how to fix this problem (and quite a few others).

P.S.  I fail to see why is it necessary to keep saying the same thing
long after this thread has lost any practical usefulness.  Why is it
so important to make the point you say you are making?