From: sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann)
Message-Id: <10211121726.AA21633@clio.rice.edu>
Subject: Re: djcrx203.zip refresh (June 2002)
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 11:26:06 -0600 (CST)
In-Reply-To: <002501c28a10$b1612a00$021ca8c0@helm> from "2boxers" at Nov 12, 2002 12:59:41 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

> Well, the refresh it is definitely a step in the right direction.  I know of
> at least two different build errors corrected when building the linux host
> cross compiler against the official gcc releases.

The changes in djcrx203 refresh are the ones required to get GCC 3.x to 
build on the native environment.  I don't currently have a system to 
test cross compiling with, so I can't comment on the updates required
for the documentation.

The "current" refresh (June 2002) has been delayed from Simtel release
due to lack of time, etc.  Five months for a few files...

The question in my mind:

 1) Since the new one's an improvement, do we put it up immediately, or
 2) Wait for some documentation fixes, put them in CVS (as 2_03_1 and head)
    re-cut the distribution, then release?

Given the relatively small number of people who have tried this ;-P
I'm not sure it makes a big difference either way.