cvs.gedasymbols.org/archives/browse.cgi | search |
X-Authentication-Warning: | delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f |
From: | Rugxulo <rugxulo AT gmail DOT com> |
Newsgroups: | comp.os.msdos.djgpp |
Subject: | Re: dirent structure wrong according to online documentation |
Date: | Mon, 26 Jan 2009 15:47:08 -0800 (PST) |
Organization: | http://groups.google.com |
Lines: | 24 |
Message-ID: | <df8cd2b0-bf46-42c6-820b-2cdb1c0c081e@o40g2000prn.googlegroups.com> |
References: | <45698add-916e-4b28-89af-80eb795bba60 AT z27g2000prd DOT googlegroups DOT com> |
<200901040903 DOT n0493pTa030645 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <22e6bf83-f793-4ffc-855d-d1dad838c578 AT e1g2000pra DOT googlegroups DOT com> | |
<u1vvhms75 DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org> <5525a459-96b6-42b6-84ad-48aaa6eaeacd AT f40g2000pri DOT googlegroups DOT com> | |
<ubpuccqk0 DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org> <8a9fbf97-6321-4882-8510-714e2023aae1 AT w1g2000prk DOT googlegroups DOT com> | |
<200901192332 DOT n0JNWDi2008546 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <497B9212 DOT 6020900 AT zytor DOT com> | |
NNTP-Posting-Host: | 65.13.115.246 |
Mime-Version: | 1.0 |
X-Trace: | posting.google.com 1233013628 24011 127.0.0.1 (26 Jan 2009 23:47:08 GMT) |
X-Complaints-To: | groups-abuse AT google DOT com |
NNTP-Posting-Date: | Mon, 26 Jan 2009 23:47:08 +0000 (UTC) |
Complaints-To: | groups-abuse AT google DOT com |
Injection-Info: | o40g2000prn.googlegroups.com; posting-host=65.13.115.246; |
posting-account=p5rsXQoAAAB8KPnVlgg9E_vlm2dvVhfO | |
User-Agent: | G2/1.0 |
X-HTTP-UserAgent: | Opera/9.63 (Windows NT 6.0; U; en) Presto/2.1.1,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) |
To: | djgpp AT delorie DOT com |
DJ-Gateway: | from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp |
X-MIME-Autoconverted: | from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id n0R005PK011743 |
Reply-To: | djgpp AT delorie DOT com |
Hi, On Jan 24, 4:11 pm, "H. Peter Anvin" <h DOT DOT DOT AT zytor DOT com> wrote: > DJ Delorie wrote: > >> I guess I can live without it. I can use stat. > > > Or try 2.04 (beta) > > OK, really dumb question... > > It's pretty clear these days that 2.04 beta is much better than 2.03, > and it has been the recommended version for many years. > > Any reason not to promote it to release? I know I'm probably not the best person to answer this, but since DJ hasn't replied yet, I'll take a stab at it: 2.04 is still "beta", i.e. less tested than 2.03p2, and it still hasn't been properly collected (e.g. patches) and released. Not sure who would need to do what exactly. Anyways, it's there for whoever wants to use it. It's not really hidden, just not recommended by the Zip Picker.
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |