Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 09:51:03 -0400
Message-Id: <200107031351.JAA13360@envy.delorie.com>
X-Authentication-Warning: envy.delorie.com: dj set sender to dj AT envy DOT delorie DOT com using -f
From: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
To: eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il
CC: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010703150302.19306I-100000@is> (message from Eli
	Zaretskii on Tue, 3 Jul 2001 15:04:10 +0300 (IDT))
Subject: Re: Upload of gcc-3.0 archives
References:  <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1010703150302 DOT 19306I-100000 AT is>
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


> Should we upload an updated djdev203.zip with no djgpp.djl?

I can edit the existing zip in place.  Since we still have previous
versions of gcc on simtel, I would discourage it.

> Also, what would happen if djgpp.djl _did_ exist: would GCC or the
> linker use it?

GCC would not.  The linker never automatically uses external specs
files, gcc has to tell it to do so.

> Finally, perhaps we should see how does this internal-script-by-default 
> affect packages that use modified linker scripts, such as dxegen, DLX, 
> etc.

They shouldn't be affected.

> Shouldn't you advertise this on c.o.m.d.?  Past experience shows that
> people who read djgpp-workers are a very biased sample of the general
> user population, so some nasty problems evade us.

Sure.  I'll send out a note.