Message-ID: <3BE71CF1.60789A68@cyberoptics.com> From: Eric Rudd Organization: CyberOptics X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: ANNOUNCE: gcc-3.0.2 for DJGPP References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 21 Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2001 17:12:49 -0600 NNTP-Posting-Host: 38.196.93.9 X-Trace: client 1005001971 38.196.93.9 (Mon, 05 Nov 2001 18:12:51 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2001 18:12:51 EST To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Eli Zaretskii wrote: > ??? Is that a joke? (it's not April 1...) > > "v2gnu" stands for "Ports of GNU software to DJGPP v2.x". The fact that > GCC is now in version 3.x doesn't change that any more than the fact that > Emacs is in version 20.x. No, it's not a joke. Of what importance is it to the user that one has, for instance, ports of BNU 2.7 and GCC 3.x both billed as "ports to DJGPP v2.x", when those tools can't be used together? If one buys a commercial compiler, one expects all the tools in a given release to be compatible with each other. Unfortunately, not all the tools in DJGPP v2.x work together, so I'm questioning why they are all billed as "v2.x". Does a new version number of DJGPP need to wait for lots of new features in the DJGPP-specific code, or does it make sense to increment the version number simply on grounds of incompatibility of core components? Presumably, the maintainers have thought this through, and the present scheme makes perfect sense, but to me it seems a little artificial, if not downright confusing. -Eric