From: Andris Pavenis <pavenis AT latnet DOT lv>
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com, Hans-Bernhard Broeker <broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de>
Subject: Re: Compiling GRX 245
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:12:54 +0200
User-Agent: KMail/1.5
References: <002101c2e3fc$181e0700$0300a8c0 AT rivasaiicfa DOT com DOT ar> <8296-Sat08Mar2003112133+0200-eliz AT elta DOT co DOT il> <b4ht7e$otf$1 AT nets3 DOT rz DOT RWTH-Aachen DOT DE>
In-Reply-To: <b4ht7e$otf$1@nets3.rz.RWTH-Aachen.DE>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200303101412.54939.pavenis@latnet.lv>
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

On Monday 10 March 2003 13:34, Hans-Bernhard Broeker wrote:
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT elta DOT co DOT il> wrote:
> > The v2.03 refreshes were prepared _precisely_ to remove the need for
> > telling users how to fix this problem (and quite a few others).
>
> I agree with this, but I do *not* agree with the apparent removal of
> the relevant section of the GCC README.DJ file.
>
> The patch instruction mentioning va_list used to be in there, unless
> memory fails me badly.  Now the newest GCC binaries just assume you
> have updated djdev203.zip installed, but tell the user neither how to
> verify that fact, nor even mention the keyword "va_list" any more.
>
> If updated djdev203.zip is now a necessity to run the default GCC
> binary distributed, then I'd say it's time to face the facts and
> release that thing as djdev204.zip.  It just doesn't make much sense
> to believe that people will update their djdev203.zip with a file of
> the same name if the only hint that they should do this is hidden in
> the README.DJ of the GCC package. People need a stronger incentive to
> update than that.

I'ts said in readme.DJGPP that one needs to have latest update of 
djdev203.zip. As related update were released, I removed a patch at the end 
of that file. Patch at end of readme.DJGPP didn't help anyway for many users,
as perhaps not all users found this file and read it. So I think removal of 
patch when updated djdev203.zip is available does not cause additional 
harm.

Also. I completely agree that it would perhaps be better to name updated 
version as 2.04 and perhaps the next version as 2.10 (my opinion only - as it 
has rather much new features) , but it was decided otherwise.  I don't want 
to expand much this topic here as it has already be discussed rather much
earlier.

Andris