Comments: Authenticated sender is <mert0407 AT sable DOT ox DOT ac DOT uk>
From: "George Foot" <george DOT foot AT merton DOT oxford DOT ac DOT uk>
To: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 09:34:23 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: djlsr and include files
Reply-to: george DOT foot AT merton DOT oxford DOT ac DOT uk
CC: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Message-Id: <E0z93iZ-00081y-00@sable.ox.ac.uk>
Precedence: bulk

On 18 Aug 98 at 19:23, DJ Delorie wrote:

> > Is it not true that using djgpp v2.01 to build v2.02 is more like a
> > cross compilation than a native build (since ultimately you're not
> > linking to the v2.01 libraries at all)?  Perhaps djlsr+djcrx is a
> > better choice for this than djlsr+djdev, if for some reason
> > (redundancy of information in the download?) you don't want to use
> > djdev.  djcrx is a lot smaller, though it still contains binaries
> > (e.g. compiled libraries) of course.
> 
> If you don't download djdev, you won't have a compiler to build with.

I'm referring to the situation where somebody is using an older 
version to compile the newer one -- i.e. having djdev201.  They still 
need the new include files, but they don't need all the compiled 
binaries, since they are about to recompile them all anyway.

-- 
george DOT foot AT merton DOT oxford DOT ac DOT uk