Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/2001/11/01/09:34:54
On 1 Nov 2001, at 15:58, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>
> On Thu, 1 Nov 2001, Charles Sandmann wrote:
>
> > So it's time to talk about what we might want to do for release(s).
> >
> > If we do a release based on 2.03 (refresh or 2.04) it's low risk,
> > minor changes (to the library) but requires rebuilds of many of
> > packages to be useful.
>
> Don't forget that such an updated 2.03 is extremely useful for people
> (most of whom are on this list) who produce binary packages: that makes
> sure we upload binaries which won't break on W2K and XP.
>
> As for rebuilding of major packages that aren't expected to get upgrades
> soon, it should be easy enough, I think.
I use it for building binaries of gcc-3.0.2 (gcc-2.95.3 for bootstraping
GCC, binutils-2.11.2, bash-2.0.4, etc).
> > Given the number of people who are using part of Andrew's work, and the
> > low number of complaints, I think we have effectively done a stealth
> > beta release of the cvs library and tools based on it.
>
> I'm not sure. How many people used it in serious development work, of
> the kind people on this list use to do? How many ports were built using
> tools compiled with the CVS library?
>
> There's a number of new features in v2.04 (such as symlinks) whose impact
> might need serious testing, and I'm not sure people who downloaded from
> the Web page did any such testing.
I haven't met serious problems with CVS version of DJGPP in last
months However I did not check all new features.
I built last Mark's update of bash-2.0.5 with gcc-3.0.2 and used it when
bootstrapped recent CVS versions of gcc-3.1 (current development
tree) and all with CVS version of DJGPP.
> So I don't think we can release 2.04 without beta phase, and that
> normally takes a few months. I say let's release patched 2.03 in the
> meantime.
Perhaps so. Maybe it's time to release beta
Andris
- Raw text -