From: sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann)
Message-Id: <10205241315.AA15099@clio.rice.edu>
Subject: Re: refresh++
To: eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il
Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 08:15:15 -0500 (CDT)
Cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-Reply-To: <1659-Fri24May2002154720+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il> from "Eli Zaretskii" at May 24, 2002 03:47:20 PM
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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

> > No plans to try any binary updates.  Is that what everyone remembered?
> 
> There was a talk about patching stat for the device bit, but IIRC the
> consensus was not to include that in the refresh.  Here's an excerpt
> from one message I kept in my archives:
>    
>     3) stat win2k device bit patch.  Changes libc.a, source distributions, 
>        really should update binaries too.  Lots of work, not noticed in
>        months of testing until after release.  Defer (probably til 2.04?)

That's still the plan.  There is also the fix for the correct errno,
which I don't even have in CVS yet, and hopefully we will find a fix
for unixy sbrk().

So that's 3 binary fixes I'd like to make if I had time - but since two
of them haven't been written yet it would greatly increase the time to
next refresh (maybe past 2.04's release ...), I'm just unhappy about it.

A fall back would be to update the libc.a but not rebuild any binaries :-P