Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 12:25:57 +0200
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To: ST001906 AT HRZ1 DOT HRZ DOT TU-Darmstadt DOT De
Message-Id: <6480-Fri26Jan2001122557+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer: Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.3.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.6
CC: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <1A94AD66C8@HRZ1.hrz.tu-darmstadt.de>
	(ST001906 AT HRZ1 DOT HRZ DOT TU-Darmstadt DOT De)
Subject: Re: djgpp: djgpp/readme.1st
References:  <1A94AD66C8 AT HRZ1 DOT hrz DOT tu-darmstadt DOT de>
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

> From: "Juan Manuel Guerrero" <ST001906 AT HRZ1 DOT HRZ DOT TU-Darmstadt DOT De>
> Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 20:01:51 +0200
>
> The goal of the patch was to keep in sync the README.1st information with
> the zip picker instructions.

I think in this case the zip-picker needs to be updated.

> But IMHO, both zip picker information **and** README.1SR information
> should be updated telling the user exactly *when* lgp*b.zip must be
> downloaded and for *what* it must be downloaded.

I think README.1ST and zip-picker can both safely ignore lgpNNNb.zip,
as if it never existed.  The FAQ explains when is lgpNNNb.zip needed,
and since it is rarely needed, we can treat it as all the other
optional packages which are never mentioned in README.1ST and the
zip-picker.