Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 17:54:09 +0300
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To: Martin Str|mberg <ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
Message-Id: <4634-Sat16Jun2001175409+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer: Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.3.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
CC: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <200106161412.QAA05663@father.ludd.luth.se> (message from Martin
	Str|mberg on Sat, 16 Jun 2001 16:12:41 +0200 (MET DST))
Subject: Re: wc204.txi entries
References:  <200106161412 DOT QAA05663 AT father DOT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
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: Martin Str|mberg <ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
> Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 16:12:41 +0200 (MET DST)
> 
> Should I write entries for signed/unsigned fixes for wc204.txi?

No.  This is something that users of the library and DJGPP programs
will never see, since the effect of the code remains unchanged.

> Should I write entries for Charles fix to the stub to not use other
> environment variables than PATH for locating CWSDPMI for wc204.txi?

Maybe.  This change _could_ be seen by users (just like you saw it
when you first reported it).