Date:	Tue, 3 Jul 2001 15:04:10 +0300 (IDT)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
cc:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: Upload of gcc-3.0 archives
In-Reply-To:	<200107022104.RAA03567@envy.delorie.com>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1010703150302.19306I-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
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

On Mon, 2 Jul 2001, DJ Delorie wrote:

> I would like the
> next release of binutils (or perhaps release a patched version of the
> current release, as long as CVS has the patch too) to have as much
> functionality in the built-in specs files as the ELF ports have.  I
> would like gcc to no longer ask for a non-built-in specs, nor should
> we provide any outside of the builtin ones.

Should we upload an updated djdev203.zip with no djgpp.djl?

Also, what would happen if djgpp.djl _did_ exist: would GCC or the
linker use it?

Finally, perhaps we should see how does this internal-script-by-default 
affect packages that use modified linker scripts, such as dxegen, DLX, 
etc.

> Meanwhile, I would like people to try the gcc zips in v2gnu/alpha.  If
> I get no complaints about functionality in the next few days, I'll
> make that official.

Shouldn't you advertise this on c.o.m.d.?  Past experience shows that
people who read djgpp-workers are a very biased sample of the general
user population, so some nasty problems evade us.

- Raw text -