From: sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann)
Message-Id: <10210190425.AA27337@clio.rice.edu>
Subject: Re: Please review readme.1st
To: acottrel AT ihug DOT com DOT au (Andrew Cottrell)
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 23:25:43 -0500 (CDT)
Cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-Reply-To: <004d01c27707$3a864670$0a02a8c0@p4> from "Andrew Cottrell" at Oct 19, 2002 10:33:34 AM
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

> In the readme there is the following paragraph, but I do not think that this
> is correct with regards to ME. Charles am I correct or not?
> 
> If you have Windows ME, 2000 or XP, images dated before December 2001
> may not work properly, so make sure you get new distributions where
> possible if you are using a newer Windows release.

It is correct.  There were some interrupts which were assumed to work
on ME if LFN=n (such as under DOS without Windows) but they were only
supported under Windows, so would fail in some rare cases.

> Because of the symlink issues I would suggest that the Compatability with
> V2.00 change to something like the following:-

I'm still not convinced the symlink incompatibility is a big deal.  I
suspect it will only be an issue with pure unix ports when testing and
installing.  Since DJGPP symlinks are not supported by anything else,
I suspect they won't be used heavily (I mix non-DJGPP toolchain images,
for example).  But I think this will be discovered in the alpha and 
beta stages (I'll certainly mix them...) - so I would save writing the
warnings until we know how severe the problem will be.

(I've even got some images built with DJGPP 1.11 I've never bothered to
rebuild...)