X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 11:38:30 -0500
Message-Id: <200412071638.iB7GcUjp002093@envy.delorie.com>
From: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <200412071838.09466.pavenis@latnet.lv> (message from Andris
	Pavenis on Tue, 7 Dec 2004 18:38:09 +0200)
Subject: Re: Patches to build GDB 6.3
References: <01c4c987$Blat.v2.2.2$52b9e920 AT zahav DOT net DOT il> <200412071821 DOT 50626 DOT pavenis AT latnet DOT lv> <200412071627 DOT iB7GRMjw001934 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <200412071838 DOT 09466 DOT pavenis AT latnet DOT lv>
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


> > Is there any reason not to just stay with the numbering we had before?
> 
> It breaks GDB. It was less noticable in earlier versions, but for example
> GDB-6.3 is unusable with out previous numbering

So, the new scheme is compatible with the new gdb, yes?

In that case, perhaps we should add gdb to the list of things to
coordinate with 2.04 and 4.0.