Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 13:42:55 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Andris Pavenis <pavenis AT lanet DOT lv>
cc: lauras AT softhome DOT net, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: gcc 3.0 released
In-Reply-To: <Pine.A41.4.05.10106250849350.16634-100000@ieva06.lanet.lv>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010625134143.2185D-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
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


On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Andris Pavenis wrote:

> > We must have been talking about different solutions - as I see it, both
> > updated djdev203.zip and new gcc30b.zip should provide the updated 
> > lib/djgpp.djl at the same location. This way it doesn't matter which file
> > overwrites the other one. Does it sound better now?
> 
> I suggested to temporary change name of linker script and supply the new
> one with GCC-3.0. So I make sure the incompatible one from djdev203.zip
> will never be used with these binaries of GCC-3.0. As result there is no
> need to update djdev203.zip now and there will be no danger of unpacking
> archives in wrong order.

What happens if one of the next Binutils releases needs to change the 
script?