X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mailnull set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f X-Authentication-Warning: new-smtp2.ihug.com.au: Host p73-tnt7.syd.ihug.com.au [203.173.144.73] claimed to be acceleron Message-ID: <005701c185c2$19bf94a0$0102a8c0@acceleron> From: "Andrew Cottrell" To: "Charles Sandmann" Cc: References: <10112150424 DOT AA14812 AT clio DOT rice DOT edu> Subject: Re: Refresh Proposal Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 10:41:33 +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 > > > I'm sure there are some other suggestions > > Only one addition that I can think of that may make a difference if people > > want to re-build thinks, that is :- > > Bash 2.04 2.04 builds out of the source using the 2.03 files. I still don't like using it on 2K or XP as it has limitations to do with the path. The 2.05 needs a small change to the 2.03 LIBC in order for it to build. (process.c If I recall correctly from last weekend). > This one intimidated me (2.04 vs 2.05, package replacements for libc, etc) > vs a straight compile. I'd need advice. I't a double edged sword. If you use Bash 2.04 then you will find issues under 2K & XP, but Bash 2.05 can't be built from the sources with LIBC 2.03!!! After I check out the LIBC 2.03 update I will see if it is feasible to use a modified Bash 2.05 sources with LIBC 2.03. > > > It turns out I have binaries to repackage all of the above done except > > > bnu2112b. With the above list done the goal would be to make Win2K/XP > > > self hosting again via simtel - if something is broken then the user > > > could fix it himself with a recompile/build of a package. > > 100% agree, but they propbably won't re-build the packages, instead they > > will compain that package X doesn't work on 2K or XP. If this occurs then it > > may be worth updateding these packages as and when required. > > Today people have a good excuse for not trying to rebuild. Admittedly > some people might complain, but others will refresh a build as part of > the project if they see problems. I'm not saying they don't get replaced, > I'm just saying that *I* don't do it on the first pass :-) 100% agree. > Today, if a package doesn't do certain things (like spawning, renaming to > existing files, special handle ops, etc) the 2.03 images work fine on W2K/XP.