X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mailnull set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f X-Authentication-Warning: acp3bf.physik.rwth-aachen.de: broeker owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 15:26:30 +0100 (MET) From: Hans-Bernhard Broeker X-Sender: broeker AT acp3bf To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com cc: eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il Subject: Re: Distribution issues (was: Re: Building a profiled version of libc) In-Reply-To: <10112032126.AA14791@clio.rice.edu> 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 Mon, 3 Dec 2001, Charles Sandmann wrote: > > 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? No. More precisely, a stub is needed only if all of the following were true: * we agree that we should have libc_p.a in DJGPP soon * therefore, we release a GCC build with a modified specs file that calls upon libc_p.a to be there * we fail to build a real libc_p.a for a DJDEV released *before* that GCC one. -- Hans-Bernhard Broeker (broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de) Even if all the snow were burnt, ashes would remain.