From: sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann)
Message-Id: <10302041445.AA12391@clio.rice.edu>
Subject: Re: /djgpp/manifest
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 08:45:28 -0600 (CST)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1030204095304.22830M-100000@is> from "Eli Zaretskii" at Feb 04, 2003 09:54:09 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

Eli noted:
> mkdist requires quite a lot of other packages.  I'm not sure we should 
> ask for them.

I view them as similar to the binary files generated in djdev - we don't
keep them in CVS either.  With the right toolset you can regenerate them.

> What's the problem of having these files in the CVS?  No one ever changes 
> them except when a distro is made.

One advantage of having them in CVS would be a quick comparison of 
what files were in each release zip.

Disadvantage is more maintenance - these already have bitrot with V2.02
files being CVS head.  To fix it we would need to check in V2.03 
versions, tag them correctly, then remove them so they don't appear in
HEAD, etc.

In any case, the V2.02 files don't belong in the V2.03 and V2.04 
distributions, so I fixed that.  I also don't feel strongly enough 
about the advantages of saving mft and ver to advocate spending time
putting them in.

So for now, you get the placeholder djdev202.ver (a nice small file)
to remind you and create the manifest directory on clean checkout...