From: sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann) Message-Id: <10210131548.AA13878@clio.rice.edu> Subject: Re: djdev 2.03 refresh mk2 and GCC 3.2 ? To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 10:48:32 -0500 (CDT) In-Reply-To: <567968082.20021013124019@softhome.net> from "Laurynas Biveinis" at Oct 13, 2002 12:40:19 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 Precedence: bulk > > Do you have revision 1.4 of src/mkdoc/Makefile? > > Nope. I want to compile 2.03, not 2.04. So 2.03 won't build with newer GCC out of the box. Makefiles need to be changed. So now we know... > I have refresh mk1 (as I was unable to find djlsr203.zip saying > it's mk2) with headers from refresh mk2. That's correct. There were no source changes in June, so I didn't refresh this zip. It has a stale readme.1st, should get updated manifests - but that's been really low priority. The current djcrx203 is still refresh 1 also (this is bad); the tags in cvs for 203_1 haven't been updated either. The current djdev203 was done by hand insert of the 7 files; the mailing list problems with GCC 3.2 were getting out of hand. > So the ability to compile 2.03 with 3.2 still concerns me. If the > changes are minimal, why not to fix djlsr203.zip? (I wish I could > volunteer, unfortunately my free time does not allow that :( My employer is currently imploding, so until the situation stablizes I don't have time to fix it yet either. We keep hoping 2.04 will get out first ... If the makefile changes don't break building with older GCCs then I have no problems with retagging/refreshing the source zip - time permitting. I haven't had time to update my refresh page about 2.03; if I find time I'll add a note about building with newer GCC. (Yes, everything is chaos).