Message-ID: <003201c262e8$4aea29b0$0100a8c0@p4>
From: "Andrew Cottrell" <acottrel AT ihug DOT com DOT au>
To: <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>, "Richard Dawe" <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
References: <3D8DA9EA DOT 5EA3E23 AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
Subject: Re: DJGPP 2.04 status page up
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 20:01:43 +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 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

Richard,

Eventaually the status page at clio should be a link to the official one. I
will modiy the main 2.04 page to have a link to yours as the official 2.04
status page in the next few days and rename the exisitng one to "Andrew (&
Charle's & Others) outstanding work issues page" (or something like that).

The status page has the following line could in some circumstances give a
wrong indicated that GCC 3.2 is broken:-
    Problems with rm.exe and the gcc 3.2 build.
I suggest changing it to:-
    Problems with file utilities when built with CVS LIBC cause rm.exe
failures whichin turn cause GCC 3.2 build issues (not GCC related).

Statuis page change suggestions:-
1) How about a section for reported, but not investigated issues?
2) How about prioritzing the issues somewhere so that people can see what
the major issue is? This is very subjective and if you have traced my status
page I never seem to get to Rhide as a showstopper always comes out of left
field just as I get close to looking at Rhide....next weekend Rhide...no
rm.exe...doh....
3) I think that the page should reference the 9 outstanding DJGPP bugs from
the bug tacking system. Some may be able to be closed in order to reduce the
number.

Some comments on the files at clio:-
1) I will need to add the build batch file & zip utility updates when ever I
do an update of the files at clio. This will allow other people to verify
that what I have done is reproducable. I should do a clean build on my old
Celleron 800 PC to ensure it can be reproduced, but I will do the release
first and then the check. I usually need to modify the batch file for any
major new release of a package because in allot of cases the build procedure
becomes more standardized.
2) I need to check the manifests to ensure that all the files are included
in the build.
3) The files that I have gone to the latest versions because of bit rot in
the build need to be sorted out as to what we do.
4) The build takes about 2 to 3 hours and then the upload takes anywhere
from 8 to 30 hours of time to do on the 56K modem. I have been looking at
ADSL, but it costs $AUD60 (approx $USD30 for 1GB/ month at 256/128).


Andrew
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Dawe" <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
To: "DJGPP workers" <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2002 9:30 PM
Subject: DJGPP 2.04 status page up


> Hello.
>
> I've put at DJGPP 2.04 status page up here:
>
>     http://www.phekda.freeserve.co.uk/richdawe/djgpp/2.04/status204.html
>
> Andrew: This complements the page you have, rather than replacing it. I've
> also listed you as doing rebuilds of the packages, when we do releases. Is
> that OK? Since you have an autobuilder, hopefully that should not be too
much
> hassle.
>
> Please let me know what you think, give corrections, suggestions, etc.
>
> Thanks, bye, Rich =]
>
> --
> Richard Dawe [ http://www.phekda.freeserve.co.uk/richdawe/ ]
>