X-Authentication-Warning: ieva01.lanet.lv: pavenis owned process doing -bs
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 10:40:37 +0300 (WET)
From: Andris Pavenis <pavenis AT lanet DOT lv>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: gcc 2.95 distribution
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.990830102504.3558Q-100000@is>
Message-ID: <Pine.A41.4.05.9908301028140.66040-100000@ieva01.lanet.lv>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
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



On Mon, 30 Aug 1999, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> There are a few small problems in the GCC 2.95 distribution:
> 
> 	- All info files are called *.inf, not *.info as they should.

Simply I tried to get them in 8+3 filename limitations. Some packages have
*.inf (eg. gzip124ab.zip) but some *.info. Currently both works. Of course
I can omit renaming *.info to *.inf if needed in future. Is it really
necessary?

> 
> 	- The file gxx-int.info is not in gcc295b.zip; I think it should 
> 	  be.

It is not built when building gcc. Of course I can do it from 
	install.djg/mkdist.sh

> 
> 	- The libg++ library distribution is called lgpp295b.zip, whereas 
> 	  all previous versions used lgpNNNb.zip (one `p').  Can we 
> 	  please go back to "lgp", for uniformity (and also for 2.95.1, where 
> 	  we will need the extra character)?
> 

It's already done for 2.95.1 which is not yet uploaded. See
	http://www.lanet.lv/~pavenis/djgpp/gcc/gcc-2.95.1.html


Andris