Message-ID: <005a01c27055$16f80800$0a02a8c0@p4>
From: "Andrew Cottrell" <acottrel AT ihug DOT com DOT au>
To: "Charles Sandmann" <sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu>, <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
References: <10210091627 DOT AA21740 AT clio DOT rice DOT edu>
Subject: Re: DJGPP Clio 2.04 WIP update
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 22:02:57 +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

> Andrew's current page becomes the V2.04 alpha build page, with notes on
> various build issues.  If some of those are Win 2000/XP specific that's
> fine - it's just a platform specific issue (like DOS vs. Windows).  If
> you read the content on Andrew's page, it's really not Win 2K/XP
> specific anymore.
I have changed the 2.04 page tonight and changed is quite a bit. I have also
updated the two text files as well.

How is this now? Are there any other changes that people want done?

> > The major showstopper left with regards to 2.04 is with rm.exe, in
summaryu
> > File Utils 4.1 rm.exe buitl with CVS LIBC fails and CoreUtils 4.5.1
rm.exe
> > built with CVS LIBC works.
>
> I believe File Utils 4.0 built with CVS was also working fine, so there
> is some incompatibility between the 4.1 source and how it assumes the
> library calls will act compared to the CVS tree.  4.1 built with 2.03
> also works?
If time permits I will build 4.05 later tonight.

> Does CVS + rm 4.1 only have problems on Win2K/XP, or also on other
> platforms?
I can check it out on a Win 98 PC tomorrow night and get back with the
results.