Date: Sun, 21 Jun 1998 09:30:58 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <199806211330.JAA12125@delorie.com>
From: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: [fdonahoe AT wilkes1 DOT wilkes DOT edu: Patch Level in /v2gnu]
Precedence: bulk


Comments?

------- Start of forwarded message -------
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 1998 08:52:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: Frank Donahoe <fdonahoe AT wilkes1 DOT wilkes DOT edu>
Reply-To: Frank Donahoe <fdonahoe AT wilkes1 DOT wilkes DOT edu>
To: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: Patch Level in /v2gnu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Good Morning, DJ

The present situation with regard to patch level of the ported programs
in the `v2gnu' directory is most unsatisfactory.  For instance, it is
not evident just by looking at the directory display, or by reading
"00-index.txt" that "gcc281s.zip" contains patched files while
"lgp2811s.zip" does not.

I do not think the date on the archive is a convenient way to distinguish
one patch level from another.  Ordinary "ftp" resets the time stamp to
the date of retrieval and in any event the date on the archive is not
the same as the date of the latest file in the archive.  Routinely I
reset the time stamp of the archives to this "latest date" by using the
"-o" option to "zip" or the "-T" option to "unzip".  In the example
cited above, "lgp2811s.zip" bore the date May 6, 22:33 while the internal
date is April 29, 20:37:16.  (My local time, EST, if everything is
working.)

My suggestion is that the 8.3 rule be violated and the patch level appear
in the name of the file.  This would make it obvious that an archive had
been changed.  Even though this tail be stripped on downloading to
a DOS system, the individual client could add this information to the
file `*.ver' if the person doing the maintainer did not.

Regards,
Frank
------- End of forwarded message -------