Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 09:39:25 +0200 (WET) From: Andris Pavenis X-Sender: pavenis AT ieva06 To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: allegro headers? In-Reply-To: <200111081656.fA8GuUm07418@envy.delorie.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII 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 On Thu, 8 Nov 2001, DJ Delorie wrote: > > > I think one should create 2.04 files there and remove old 2.03 ones > > from CVS (that is what I assumed). I only think Eli or DJ should > > change that, or at least one should ask their permission to do that. > > We need not remove the 2.03 ones if mkdist doesn't refer to them. Go > ahead and add 2.04 ones if you wish, but don't change mkdist yet. My > cvs area still has the 2.02 ones. > > Or add 0.00 ones and point mkdist at those. The distrib directory > isn't critical; anyone making a distribution can find and fix bugs as > they go. > For example I'm running automatic update from CVS and build (if something changes) from crontab at night time (here in Latvia). Of course I could add applying some patches before build (currently there are none) Resulting archives are at: http://hal.astr.lu.lv/private/djgpp-test/ (when this machine is running Linux) About updating version: Is it Ok to apply? Index: version.h =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/djgpp/djgpp/include/sys/version.h,v retrieving revision 1.3 diff -p -3 -r1.3 version.h *** version.h 1999/06/03 17:22:29 1.3 --- version.h 2001/11/09 07:48:13 *************** *** 13,19 **** #undef __DJGPP_MINOR #undef __DJGPP_MINOR__ ! #define DJGPP_MINOR 3 ! #define __DJGPP_MINOR 3 ! #define __DJGPP_MINOR__ 3 --- 13,19 ---- #undef __DJGPP_MINOR #undef __DJGPP_MINOR__ ! #define DJGPP_MINOR 4 ! #define __DJGPP_MINOR 4 ! #define __DJGPP_MINOR__ 4 Andris