Sender: rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk
Message-ID: <3DA6A772.FF3D6490@phekda.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 11:26:58 +0100
From: Richard Dawe <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.19 i586)
X-Accept-Language: de,fr
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: File UItils at Clio 2.04 Query
References: <10210091627 DOT AA21740 AT clio DOT rice DOT edu> <3DA5C06C DOT 8D0140D1 AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk> <002901c270ee$a3c43f30$0a02a8c0 AT p4>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

Hello.

Andrew Cottrell wrote:
[snip]
> What do people think I should put on clio with regards to the file utilities
> built with the CVS LIBC? Some example I can think of are:-
>     a) Put File Utils 4.0 up there
>     b) Put File Utils 4.1 with rm.exe from File Utils 4.0
>     c) Put File Utils 4.1 with rm.exe from Core Utils
>     d) None - get people to use the File Utils 4.1 from simtel - this is
> what happens with the latest update
[snip]

I like option c). From my point of view both fileutils 4.0 and 4.1 built
against CVS have had about the same amount of testing. So there's not much to
choose between 4.0 and 4.1. Since I'm no longer supporting 4.0, I'd prefer [as
much as possible of] 4.1 to be available.

Bye, Rich =]

-- 
Richard Dawe [ http://www.phekda.freeserve.co.uk/richdawe/ ]