X-Authentication-Warning: new-smtp2.ihug.com.au: Host p103-tnt3.syd.ihug.com.au [203.173.132.103] claimed to be acceleron
Message-ID: <00fa01c16f62$0a522bc0$0a02a8c0@acceleron>
From: "Andrew Cottrell" <acottrel AT ihug DOT com DOT au>
To: <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>, "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Cc: <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
References: <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1010924141908 DOT 26299C-100000 AT is> <004901c144fd$2d93f350$0a02a8c0 AT acceleron> <00bd01c16f5b$ae341340$0a02a8c0 AT acceleron>
Subject: Re: Which 2.12.1 source and binary test zip file
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 23:18:29 +1100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

All,

I found that there is a which 2.13 and I have just finished updating to it.
I have uploaded the 2.13.1 files to clio and deleted the 2.12.1 files and
updated the html file to use the new files.

Andrew
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Cottrell" <acottrel AT ihug DOT com DOT au>
To: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Cc: <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2001 10:32 PM
Subject: Which 2.12.1 source and binary test zip file


> Eli,
>
> I have produced a which 2.12.1 source and binary release that is based on
> the GNU 2.12 plus the which.c changes for DJGPP and the patch that you
sent
> out in September. I called it 2.12.1 as it is not the GNU 2.12 release,
but
> a modified verison for DJGPP, is this okay?
>
> Both files are available at http://clio.rice.edu/djgpp/win2k/main.htm for
> testing purposes.
>
> How do I produce the files that are needed to produce the doc package? I
> could not see how to produce the files in the 2.11 doc package from the
> makefile, I may have missed something.
>
> I have included DSM files, but I don't know if they are correct or not.
> Could someone please check the DSM files out and send me updates if they
are
> wrong.
>
> Andrew
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Andrew Cottrell" <acottrel AT ihug DOT com DOT au>
> To: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
> Cc: <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2001 12:31 AM
> Subject: Re: which crashes
>
>
> > > > I checked out the differences between Which 2.11 and 2.12 and the
> > changes
> > > > are with the man pages only. I couldn't see who produced the DJGPP
> port
> > as
> > > > it has allot of DJGPP changes compared to the original which.c
source.
> > >
> > > I have a few more complaints about the ported Which.  For example,
> > > there's no DJGPP-specific README anywhere in sight, and it looks like
a
> > > user is supposed to run "sh ./configure" to configure the package.
> These
> > > things shouldn't be left without saying them explicitly.
> > >
> > > > The next time I build the Which package for testing under WIn 2K
> should
> > I
> > > > include these changes?
> > >
> > > I don't see any sense in producing a binary that is known to bomb...
> > >
> > > > I can also produce a source package as well.
> > >
> > > Any binary distribution should be accompanied by a source
distribution.
> > > If you produce the binary from modified sources, you should make those
> > > modified sources available as well.  That's a GPL requirement.
> >
> > If no one does it before me I will add this to me list of work to be
done.
> I
> > will produce a Which source and binary release for Win 2K testing and
then
> > normalise the packages to be more like the normal DJGPP packages and
while
> I
> > am at it I should update it to 2.12.
> >
> > If any one else wants to do this or starts this first could you please
let
> > me know so I do not waste my time.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Andrew
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>