This is the mail archive of the binutils@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the binutils project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: libbfd documentation date is too old

To: nickc at cambridge dot redhat dot com, binutils at sourceware dot cygnus dot com
Subject: Re: libbfd documentation date is too old
From: "David O'Brien" <obrien at NUXI dot com>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 11:59:38 -0700
Organization: The NUXI BSD group
References: <20011023123059.A76479@dragon.nuxi.com> <m3u1wmsioq.fsf@north-pole.nickc.cambridge.redhat.com> <20011026102254.A12435@dragon.nuxi.com> <siadye44j6.fsf@daffy.airs.com>
Reply-To: obrien at NUXI dot com

On Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 11:53:01AM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > Look better. :-)
> > However, I've never really understood what "BFD version < 3.0" meant.
> > Was there a planed rewrite that would have been dubbed "3.0" or
> > something?
> 
> It's just a Steve Chamberlain joke.  No product is stable until at
> least release 3.0.

Should we remove it?  I have seen it confuse people that productize
Binutils.

-- 
-- David    (obrien@NUXI.com)

Follow-Ups:
- Re: libbfd documentation date is too old
  - From: Andrew Cagney
- Re: libbfd documentation date is too old
  - From: Nick Clifton

References:
- libbfd documentation date is too old
  - From: David O'Brien
- Re: libbfd documentation date is too old
  - From: Nick Clifton
- Re: libbfd documentation date is too old
  - From: David O'Brien
- Re: libbfd documentation date is too old
  - From: Ian Lance Taylor

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]