Sender: rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk
Message-ID: <3DA94243.F9F36A44@phekda.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 10:52:03 +0100
From: Richard Dawe <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.19 i586)
X-Accept-Language: de,fr
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: RESEND: Re: File UItils at Clio 2.04 Query
References: <10210091627 DOT AA21740 AT clio DOT rice DOT edu> <3DA5C06C DOT 8D0140D1 AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk> <002901c270ee$a3c43f30$0a02a8c0 AT p4> <3DA6A772 DOT FF3D6490 AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk> <3DA6B6C4 DOT E462F5E1 AT yahoo DOT com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

Hello.

[ I'm having trouble getting mail from my ISP to *@delorie.com right now,
hence the resend. ]

CBFalconer wrote:
[snip]
> Richard Dawe wrote:
>
> > I like option c). From my point of view both fileutils 4.0 and 4.1
> > built against CVS have had about the same amount of testing. So
> > there's not much to choose between 4.0 and 4.1. Since I'm no longer
> > supporting 4.0, I'd prefer [as much as possible of] 4.1 to be
> > available.
> 
> I suspect I am coming in here late with some vital data missing,
> but it seems to me that if an earlier version works and a later
> doesn't it should be possible to pinpoint the difference, and
> correct the source accordingly.  The above sounds as if you will
> end up with a package that cannot be recreated from the source.
> That will lead to future confusion.

Sure, but we need a working Fileutils package in the meantime.

Besides, if the package is documented as being fileutils 4.1 but with rm.exe
from fileutils 4.0, then users can reproduce it from source.

Bye, Rich =]

-- 
Richard Dawe [ http://www.phekda.freeserve.co.uk/richdawe/ ]