X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f
From: Rugxulo <rugxulo AT gmail DOT com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: dirent structure wrong according to online documentation
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 15:47:08 -0800 (PST)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <df8cd2b0-bf46-42c6-820b-2cdb1c0c081e@o40g2000prn.googlegroups.com>
References: <45698add-916e-4b28-89af-80eb795bba60 AT z27g2000prd DOT googlegroups DOT com> 
	<200901040903 DOT n0493pTa030645 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <22e6bf83-f793-4ffc-855d-d1dad838c578 AT e1g2000pra DOT googlegroups DOT com> 
	<u1vvhms75 DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org> <5525a459-96b6-42b6-84ad-48aaa6eaeacd AT f40g2000pri DOT googlegroups DOT com> 
	<ubpuccqk0 DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org> <8a9fbf97-6321-4882-8510-714e2023aae1 AT w1g2000prk DOT googlegroups DOT com> 
	<200901192332 DOT n0JNWDi2008546 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <497B9212 DOT 6020900 AT zytor DOT com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.13.115.246
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1233013628 24011 127.0.0.1 (26 Jan 2009 23:47:08 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse AT google DOT com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 23:47:08 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse AT google DOT com
Injection-Info: o40g2000prn.googlegroups.com; posting-host=65.13.115.246; 
	posting-account=p5rsXQoAAAB8KPnVlgg9E_vlm2dvVhfO
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Opera/9.63 (Windows NT 6.0; U; en) Presto/2.1.1,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id n0R005PK011743
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Hi,

On Jan 24, 4:11 pm, "H. Peter Anvin" <h DOT  DOT  DOT  AT zytor DOT com> wrote:
> DJ Delorie wrote:
> >> I guess I can live without it.  I can use stat.
>
> > Or try 2.04 (beta)
>
> OK, really dumb question...
>
> It's pretty clear these days that 2.04 beta is much better than 2.03,
> and it has been the recommended version for many years.
>
> Any reason not to promote it to release?

I know I'm probably not the best person to answer this, but since DJ
hasn't replied yet, I'll take a stab at it:

2.04 is still "beta", i.e. less tested than 2.03p2, and it still
hasn't been properly collected (e.g. patches) and released. Not sure
who would need to do what exactly.

Anyways, it's there for whoever wants to use it. It's not really
hidden, just not recommended by the Zip Picker.