From: pavenis AT lanet DOT lv
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 16:33:28 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: Win2K/XP status - next steps?
Message-ID: <3BE17958.23603.9DE3B9@localhost>
References: <10111010650 DOT AA14664 AT clio DOT rice DOT edu>
In-reply-to: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1011101155203.18482K-100000@is>
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c)
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

On 1 Nov 2001, at 15:58, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> 
> On Thu, 1 Nov 2001, Charles Sandmann wrote:
> 
> > So it's time to talk about what we might want to do for release(s).
> > 
> > If we do a release based on 2.03 (refresh or 2.04) it's low risk,
> > minor changes (to the library) but requires rebuilds of many of 
> > packages to be useful.
> 
> Don't forget that such an updated 2.03 is extremely useful for people 
> (most of whom are on this list) who produce binary packages: that makes 
> sure we upload binaries which won't break on W2K and XP.
> 
> As for rebuilding of major packages that aren't expected to get upgrades 
> soon, it should be easy enough, I think.

I use it for building binaries of gcc-3.0.2 (gcc-2.95.3 for bootstraping 
GCC, binutils-2.11.2, bash-2.0.4, etc).

> > Given the number of people who are using part of Andrew's work, and the
> > low number of complaints, I think we have effectively done a stealth
> > beta release of the cvs library and tools based on it.
> 
> I'm not sure.  How many people used it in serious development work, of 
> the kind people on this list use to do?  How many ports were built using 
> tools compiled with the CVS library?
> 
> There's a number of new features in v2.04 (such as symlinks) whose impact 
> might need serious testing, and I'm not sure people who downloaded from 
> the Web page did any such testing.

I haven't met serious problems with CVS version of DJGPP in last 
months However I did not check all new features.

I built last Mark's update of bash-2.0.5 with gcc-3.0.2 and used it when
bootstrapped recent CVS versions of gcc-3.1 (current development 
tree) and all with CVS version of DJGPP. 

> So I don't think we can release 2.04 without beta phase, and that 
> normally takes a few months.  I say let's release patched 2.03 in the 
> meantime.

Perhaps so. Maybe it's time to release beta

Andris