Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 10:08:15 +0200 (IST) From: Eli Zaretskii X-Sender: eliz AT is To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com cc: "Mark E." Subject: Re: ANNOUNCE: Binutils 2.9.5 beta 1 released In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Errors-To: dj-admin AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk On Sat, 4 Mar 2000, Andris Pavenis wrote: > About CRC failures in bnu2951s.zip in Simtelnet: > I also experienced similar problems with some attempts to upload > gcc related archives to ftp.delorie.com (and as I remember I was > not alone): FWIW it never happened to me. Very strange, these failures. > So perhaps we should always send MD5SUMs to DJ for tests and he > should try to find a weak place where problems appears. Probably a good idea, assuming that DJ has time to verify ;-) > 1) It was DOS style text file. It would be better to have UNIX style text > file (I'm patching binutils and building them for DJGPP using > cross-compiling under Linux) Although I agree that it is better to have patches (and all files in general) in Unix format, you can use the --binary switch to Patch to remove the CR characters. IIRC, Patch 2.5.3 supports that switch. > 3) Is it really needed to patch configure (as it is generated file). If > one applies patches to different binutils snapshot he/she is expected > to know how to use autoconf. At least patch for configure failed > as perhaps You used file generated by DJGPP port of autoconf I usually run a Sed script on configure, not Patch. A Sed script is much more robust that a patch file, because it depends less on context, and because you control how much context do you want it to pick. In any case, I think it is undesirable to ask people who want to build the distribution to install Autoconf. We already ask too much for building packages; adding Autoconf, Automake, M4, and Perl to that would be unjustified (IMHO).