X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f
Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 16:09:38 +0200
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT gnu DOT org>
Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Message-ID: <01c4e50b$Blat.v2.2.2$5ba72c60@zahav.net.il>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Mailer: emacs 21.3.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 2.2.2
CC: st001906 AT hrz1 DOT hrz DOT tu-darmstadt DOT de
In-reply-to: <1103198016.41c17740e5554@webmail.wilkes.edu>
	(fdonahoe AT wilkes DOT edu)
Subject: Re: ANNOUNCE: DJGPP port of GNU gzip-1.3.5 uploaded
References:  <1103198016 DOT 41c17740e5554 AT webmail DOT wilkes DOT edu>
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

> Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 06:53:36 -0500
> From: fdonahoe AT wilkes DOT edu
> Cc: Workers List <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
> 
> The install script ran seriously wrong on Windows XP using
> djdev 2.04.  The first time install ran the sequence was not
> preserved, but the result left these files
> 
> -----m  root         3886 Dec 15 20:04 znew
> -----m  root         2100 Dec 15 20:04 zmore
> -----m  root          252 Dec 15 20:04 zless
> -----m  root         3202 Dec 15 20:04 zgrep
> -----m  root         1728 Dec 15 20:04 zforce
> -----m  root         3202 Dec 15 20:04 zfgrep
> -----m  root         3202 Dec 15 20:04 zegrep
> -----m  root         2300 Dec 15 20:04 zdiff
> -----m  root         2300 Dec 15 20:04 zcmp
> -----m  root        77816 Dec 15 20:04 gzip.exe
> -----m  root         5517 Dec 15 20:04 gzexe
> -----m  root          510 Dec 15 20:04 zcat -> \
>   /dev/env/DJDIR/bin/gzip
> -----m  root          510 Dec 15 20:04 gunzip -> \
>   /dev/env/DJDIR/bin/gzip
> 
> 
> in /dev/env/DJDIR/bin
> 
> We see that the djdev 2.04 facility with links has been
> wrongly exploited.

Sorry, can you explain why you think these links are wrong?  I'm
afraid I don't see anything wrong with them (for v2.04, where symlinks
are supported).  What am I missing?