Message-ID: <915C65C50371D11187AD0000F881B9A44B4849@bcarua62.ca.nortel.com>
From: "Ian Chapman" <Ian DOT Chapman DOT ichapman AT nt DOT com>
To: "'Eli Zaretskii'" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Cc: "'djgpp AT delorie DOT com'" <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: RE: split and merge
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 14:03:06 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

Eli and all,
	thanks for the help.  I've updated merge and split from djgpp 201
release and split merge are okay.  Only comment it's got a new date/time
stamp no big deal.

		Regards Ian.

> ----------
> From: 	Eli Zaretskii[SMTP:eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il]
> Sent: 	Wednesday, August 12, 1998 10:15 AM
> To: 	Chapman, Ian [CAR:TM14:EXCH]
> Cc: 	'djgpp AT delorie DOT com'
> Subject: 	Re: split and merge
> 
> 
> On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, Ian Chapman wrote:
> 
> > I pulled over cc16e403.exe from Netscape and split it
> > into 10 files of 1405k ... cc16e403.AA to AJ.  Not 000 per the djgpp
> info.
> 
> That's because your `split.exe' isn't the one from djdev201, it is most 
> probably from the GNU Textutils package.
> 
> DJGPP v2.02 renames its split.exe to djsplit.exe, and merge.exe to 
> djmerge.exe, to avoid these problems.
> 
> > 	So I'm reporting a minor bug if BASE.000 is not there merge fails
> > ungracefully
> 
> Noted.  Thanks for the bug report.
> 
> > merge.exe	37,376	10-31-96	7:14p
> > split.exe	61,952	02-01-97	7:08p ... are these the right
> > vintages?
> 
> No, split.exe from djdev should be also dated 10-31-96 (that's the date 
> of DJGPP 2.01 release).
>