From: Jason Green <news AT jgreen4 DOT fsnet DOT co DOT uk>
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: Weekly Mini-FAQ post for DJGPP
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 15:34:55 +0100
Message-ID: <fod9qtkbk0389173acsd0u8aobklgv95f9@4ax.com>
References: <200109100500 DOT BAA12378 AT delorie DOT com> <3BA371F0 DOT 2D0BEE68 AT yahoo DOT com> <1438-Sat15Sep2001190651+0300-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.7/32.534
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

"Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> wrote:

> > Request: list these as the actual zip filenames, possibly as a
> > separate listing. That way it can be quickly compared to the
> > package filenames locally available.  Example:
> > 
> >   binutils-2.11.2 (bnu2112b.zip), bison-1.28 (bsn129b.zip), ....
> 
> You should be able to use the files in the manifest directory to
> compare the names, since the *.ver files state the versions in full.
> 
> Not that I object to adding the zip file names, but if we are going to
> do that, we should probably change the format as well:
> 
>    binutils-2.11.2           bnu2112b.zip, bnu2112s.zip
>    bison-1.29		     bsn129b.zip,  bsn129s.zip

Timestamp and filesize should probably be listed too, to catch the cases
when a package is re-released under the same name.

How about also prefixing each line with an asterix if the package is less
than a month old?