Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 07:27:57 -0500
Message-Id: <199903231227.HAA22322@mescaline.gnu.org>
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT gnu DOT org>
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
CC: muller AT cerbere DOT u-strasbg DOT fr
In-reply-to: <B0000080657@stargate.astr.lu.lv> (pavenis@lanet.lv)
Subject: Re: Debugging support in DJGPP
References: <Pine DOT A41 DOT 4 DOT 05 DOT 9903221012410 DOT 32280-100000 AT ieva01 DOT lanet DOT lv>	(message from Andris Pavenis on Mon, 22 Mar 1999 10:29:38 +0200 (WET)) <B0000080657 AT stargate DOT astr DOT lu DOT lv>
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

   From: "Andris Pavenis" <pavenis AT lanet DOT lv>

   Anyway I think dbgcom.c is a different thing. Perhaps we should carefully test
   all available debuggers (FSDB, EDEBUG, GDB, RHIDE) with modified version and
   if there is no serious problems we should go ahead instead of leaving this for 
   some more far future.

One of the things I wanted to ask all those who ported some package
was to rebuild the binaries with v2.03 as soon as it is released.
(IMHO it is not right to have binaries compiled with old libraries.)
How does this affect your recommendation about including dbgcom.c
changes?