Date:	Tue, 28 Apr 92 10:23:41 EDT
From:	csa AT pennies DOT sw DOT stratus DOT com (Chris Arthur)
To:	fsf AT hpic006 DOT MENTORG DOT COM
Subject:	Re: 1.06 and 2.01
Cc:	djgpp AT sun DOT soe DOT clarkson DOT edu
Status:	O

> From: Rick Farnbach <fsf AT hpic006 DOT MENTORG DOT COM>
> 
> >>>>> On Mon, 27 Apr 92 17:03:25 EDT, DJ Delorie <dj AT ctron DOT com> said:
> 
> DJ> The files associated with the development environment itself (djgpp,
> DJ> includes, libs, etc) are version keyed to the extender (1.06).  I'm
> DJ> trying to isolate FSF products so that I can track their rev numbers
> DJ> (ie: gcc-2.1 is djgcc201).
> 
> So djgcc201 is really gcc-2.1, not gcc-2.01?  That would be good news.
> Richard Stallman posted a while back in gnu.gcc.help that GCC 2.01 was
> just too buggy and that everyone should upgrade to 2.1.
> 
> Rick

Just to set the record straight here:  Richard Stallman posted a message
about *** gcc 2.0 *** (which is the same as 2.00) being bogus.  gcc 2.01,
as DJ numbers it, is the exact same thing as gcc 2.1, as the FSF numbers
it.  DJ doesn't have the luxury of embedding .'s, so he added the zero
(I assume) to prevent confusion.  (I guess it didn't work. :-)

							chris

- Raw text -