Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 17:04:55 -0400
Message-Id: <200107022104.RAA03567@envy.delorie.com>
X-Authentication-Warning: envy.delorie.com: dj set sender to dj AT envy DOT delorie DOT com using -f
From: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <200106221720.f5MHK2I00605@hal.astr.lu.lv> (message from Andris
	Pavenis on Fri, 22 Jun 2001 20:20:01 +0300)
Subject: Re: Upload of gcc-3.0 archives
References:  <200106221720 DOT f5MHK2I00605 AT hal DOT astr DOT lu DOT lv>
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


I have moved the most recent gcc zips from Andris to v2gnu/alphas
(replacing the previous gcc 3.0 alphas).

Since we haven't come to a mutual agreement about the link specs file,
I get to issue an edict (hurray for me, I hope ;).  I would like the
next release of binutils (or perhaps release a patched version of the
current release, as long as CVS has the patch too) to have as much
functionality in the built-in specs files as the ELF ports have.  I
would like gcc to no longer ask for a non-built-in specs, nor should
we provide any outside of the builtin ones.  We should be no worse off
than Linux if we follow the gcc/binutils development as closely as
we've been doing.

Meanwhile, I would like people to try the gcc zips in v2gnu/alpha.  If
I get no complaints about functionality in the next few days, I'll
make that official.

Thanks to all of you for your hard work in this, and thanks in advance
for those who have to deal with the consequences of my edict.

DJ