Message-ID:	<3BE71CF1.60789A68@cyberoptics.com>
From:	Eric Rudd <rudd AT cyberoptics DOT com>
Organization:	CyberOptics
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; U)
X-Accept-Language:	en,pdf
MIME-Version:	1.0
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: ANNOUNCE: gcc-3.0.2 for DJGPP
References:	<Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1011105165632 DOT 29647C-100000 AT is>
Lines:	21
Date:	Mon, 05 Nov 2001 17:12:49 -0600
NNTP-Posting-Host:	38.196.93.9
X-Trace:	client 1005001971 38.196.93.9 (Mon, 05 Nov 2001 18:12:51 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date:	Mon, 05 Nov 2001 18:12:51 EST
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> ??? Is that a joke? (it's not April 1...)
>
> "v2gnu" stands for "Ports of GNU software to DJGPP v2.x".  The fact that
> GCC is now in version 3.x doesn't change that any more than the fact that
> Emacs is in version 20.x.

No, it's not a joke.  Of what importance is it to the user that one has, for instance,
ports of BNU 2.7 and GCC 3.x both billed as "ports to DJGPP v2.x", when those tools can't
be used together?  If one buys a commercial compiler, one expects all the tools in a
given release to be compatible with each other.  Unfortunately, not all the tools in
DJGPP v2.x work together, so I'm questioning why they are all billed as "v2.x".  Does a
new version number of DJGPP need to wait for lots of new features in the DJGPP-specific
code, or does it make sense to increment the version number simply on grounds of
incompatibility of core components?  Presumably, the maintainers have thought this
through, and the present scheme makes perfect sense, but to me it seems a little
artificial, if not downright confusing.

-Eric

- Raw text -