Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 22:03:08 +0300
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
Message-Id: <925-Fri29Jun2001220308+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: <200106291724.NAA23825@envy.delorie.com> (message from DJ Delorie
	on Fri, 29 Jun 2001 13:24:22 -0400)
Subject: Re: gcc 3.0 released
References: <008301c10050$1a8e4680$e33e1d18 AT nycap DOT rr DOT com> (matt AT conte DOT com) <3B3C5EDA DOT 24973 DOT 3C891E AT localhost> <200106291724 DOT NAA23825 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
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

> Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 13:24:22 -0400
> From: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
> 
> I think saying "gcc version X requires binutils version Y" is a
> reasonable solution to that problem.

That would mean that GCC 3.0 should have been released together with
Binutils, since that's the only way of updating the built-in script.
And likewise for the next releases of GCC and Binutils.

In other words, we are back at releasing GCC and Binutils as one
tightly coupled package.  If we are willing to accept that as the new
modus operandi, I have no objections.