X-Authentication-Warning: new-smtp1.ihug.com.au: Host p302-apx1.syd.ihug.com.au [203.173.141.48] claimed to be acceleron
Message-ID: <002b01c11244$3d9e86c0$0a02a8c0@acceleron>
From: "Andrew Cottrell" <acottrel AT ihug DOT com DOT au>
To: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Cc: <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
References: <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1010718130735 DOT 13783A-100000 AT is> <006701c111d4$65af97f0$0a02a8c0 AT acceleron> <8011-Sat21Jul2001171938+0300-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Subject: Re: Comments on GCC 3.0 distribution
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 10:21:22 +1000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com


> > In either case the non technical end users will still make mistakes.
>
> If we replace the packages on SimTel with patched ones, what mistakes
> should that cause?

The end users will say they have the correct version of the package by
checking the version via the version option in most exe's, but this does not
indicate that the package was re-built with the modified libc. I see this as
causing allot of problems with end users using the old packages on Win2K
instead of the newer packages with the same name.

A suggestion is to include a line in the manifest, dsm, readme or a new file
in teh package that explicitly outlines the other packages and versions that
were used to build the package. An example from the readme.dos for Binutils
2.11.2 could be (hopefully I have remembered the latest version numbers):

1) bnu211s.zip
2) Bash 2.03.
3) GCC 3.0.0 (dated xx/yyy/zzz, please remember month and day are not in the
same order throughout the world)
4) Make 3.79.1
5) Sed 3.06.
6) Fileutils 3.40.
7) DJGPP v2.04 CVS wip of 15-July-2001
8) Windows 98 SE

Regards,
Andrew