Message-ID:	<3DA6B6C4.E462F5E1@yahoo.com>
Date:	Fri, 11 Oct 2002 07:32:20 -0400
From:	CBFalconer <cbfalconer AT yahoo DOT com>
Organization:	Ched Research
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language:	en
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: File UItils at Clio 2.04 Query
References:	<10210091627 DOT AA21740 AT clio DOT rice DOT edu> <3DA5C06C DOT 8D0140D1 AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk> <002901c270ee$a3c43f30$0a02a8c0 AT p4> <3DA6A772 DOT FF3D6490 AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

Richard Dawe wrote:
> Andrew Cottrell wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> > What do people think I should put on clio with regards to the file
> > utilities built with the CVS LIBC? Some example I can think of are:-
> >     a) Put File Utils 4.0 up there
> >     b) Put File Utils 4.1 with rm.exe from File Utils 4.0
> >     c) Put File Utils 4.1 with rm.exe from Core Utils
> >     d) None - get people to use the File Utils 4.1 from simtel -
> > this is what happens with the latest update
> [snip]
> 
> I like option c). From my point of view both fileutils 4.0 and 4.1
> built against CVS have had about the same amount of testing. So
> there's not much to choose between 4.0 and 4.1. Since I'm no longer
> supporting 4.0, I'd prefer [as much as possible of] 4.1 to be
> available.

I suspect I am coming in here late with some vital data missing,
but it seems to me that if an earlier version works and a later
doesn't it should be possible to pinpoint the difference, and
correct the source accordingly.  The above sounds as if you will
end up with a package that cannot be recreated from the source. 
That will lead to future confusion.

-- 
Chuck F (cbfalconer AT yahoo DOT com) (cbfalconer AT worldnet DOT att DOT net)
   Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
   <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>  USE worldnet address!

- Raw text -