Sender: salvador AT delorie DOT com
Message-ID: <3BB47B87.9B09F99A@inti.gov.ar>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 10:30:47 -0300
From: salvador <salvador AT inti DOT gov DOT ar>
Organization: INTI
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.19 i686)
X-Accept-Language: es-AR, en, es
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: 2.03.1
References: <200109261644 DOT f8QGiWe22950 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

More or less related to it:
The way you use 2.01, 2.02, 2.03, etc. gives the impression that it is
2.0.1, 2.0.2, 2.0.3, etc.
In this context 2.0.4==2.04 is ok. But: shouldn't be good to also make it
more clear? I mean: assume 2.03 is in fact 2.0.3 and define some "middle"
version in headers?
Just my point of view, when I detect djgpp with my configure script I report
2.03 as 2.0.3.

SET

--
Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET). (Electronics Engineer)
Visit my home page: http://welcome.to/SetSoft or
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Vista/6552/
Alternative e-mail: set AT computer DOT org set AT ieee DOT org
Address: Curapaligue 2124, Caseros, 3 de Febrero
Buenos Aires, (1678), ARGENTINA Phone: +(5411) 4759 0013