Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/1999/08/30/07:17:07
On Mon, 30 Aug 1999, Andris Pavenis wrote:
> Simply I tried to get them in 8+3 filename limitations. Some packages have
> *.inf (eg. gzip124ab.zip) but some *.info.
gzip124a was released before v2.02, and info/DIR from v2.01 mentioned
"gzip.inf". That's why Gzip has the short file name there: I didn't want
the users to be unable to read the docs on LFN systems.
We switched to *.info in v2.02, and removed the extensions from all the
file names in DIR. So packages that are released from then on should use
.info.
> Currently both works.
Is this true for all Info readers (RHIDE, SETEdit, InfView, etc.)? I
know Emacs and the stand-alone Info do support both, but that's because
there's some special code there to do that.
> I can omit renaming *.info to *.inf if needed in future. Is it really
> necessary?
It isn't necessary, it just makes Info load the file faster (since .info
is looked for first), and makes the distribution more uniform (well,
eventually, when all of them use .info file names).
> > - The file gxx-int.info is not in gcc295b.zip; I think it should
> > be.
>
> It is not built when building gcc.
Isn't this a bug in GCC?
Anyway, I only payed attention to this because somebody once asked a
question on c.o.m.d. about how do C++ exceptions work, and Robert replied
that gxx-int explains that and that it wasn't in gcc281b.zip by omission.
> > - The libg++ library distribution is called lgpp295b.zip, whereas
> > all previous versions used lgpNNNb.zip (one `p'). Can we
> > please go back to "lgp", for uniformity (and also for 2.95.1, where
> > we will need the extra character)?
> >
>
> It's already done for 2.95.1 which is not yet uploaded.
Thanks.
- Raw text -