X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mailnull set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f
From: sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann)
Message-Id: <10112032126.AA14791@clio.rice.edu>
Subject: Distribution issues (was: Re: Building a profiled version of libc)
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com, eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 15:26:37 -0600 (CST)
Cc: broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de (Hans-Bernhard Broeker)
In-Reply-To: <2110-Mon03Dec2001213522+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il> from "Eli Zaretskii" at Dec 03, 2001 09:35:22 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

> And the problem is that specs is in the GCC distribution, while
> libc_p.a, if we decide to distribute one, will be in djdev.
> 
> What I was saying was that these two changes must be in sync,
> otherwise users will have broken installations.  At the very least,
> we must release djdev with libc_p.a first, and modify specs some time
> after that.

When we refresh 2.03, should we put a stub libc_p.a in there?  Is a 
stub a new feature?  (The null libraries such as libpc.a take around
500 bytes).

By the way, should the .dsm be in the .mft?