Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 09:45:57 +0300 (WET)
From: Andris Pavenis <pavenis AT lanet DOT lv>
X-Sender: pavenis AT ieva06
To: Charles Sandmann <sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu>
Cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: v2.03 update 2
In-Reply-To: <10206110304.AA14474@clio.rice.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.A41.4.05.10206110942570.28020-100000@ieva06>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
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



On Mon, 10 Jun 2002, Charles Sandmann wrote:

> > > > * In djdev203.ver perhaps you could put 'June 2002' instead of '6/2002'.
> > > 
> > > Could do so. I just modified what was done for refresh 1.  Worth changing?
> > 
> > Only if you have time.
> 
> Since I'll be adding copyright lines, why not.  The other suggestion was
> 2002-06 (ISO) for the date.  Since no one commented on it in refresh 1
> whoever feels the most strongly about it (short of an overwhelming vote)
> wins.  (Does anyone/anything look at the .ver file?)
> 
> > Actually, I have a question about DJGPP.ENV, after hand-patching. In the RHIDE
> > section, why do we have:
> > 
> >     +RHIDE_TYPED_LIBS_DJGPP.cpp=stdcxx m
> >     +RHIDE_TYPED_LIBS.f=g2c m

It's correct. RHIDE_TYPED_LIBS_DJGPP.f is a BUG (such env. variable is
not used by RHIDE at all). Contents of [rhide] section in current CVS
version of djgpp.env is correct.

Andris