From xemacs-m  Thu Sep 18 04:06:46 1997
Received: from frege.math.ethz.ch (root@frege-d-math-north-g-west.math.ethz.ch [129.132.145.3])
	by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id EAA20690
	for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 04:06:43 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from midget (vroonhof@midget [129.132.145.4]) by frege.math.ethz.ch (8.6.12/Main-STAT-mailer) with ESMTP id LAA16359 for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 11:06:29 +0200
Received: (vroonhof@localhost) by midget (SMI-8.6/D-MATH-client) id LAA25710; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 11:06:28 +0200
To: xemacs-beta@xemacs.org
Subject: Re: [success after failure] XEmacs-20.3-b21 "Bern"          Debian 1.3 Linux 2.0.29
References: <m0xBHuQ-00002NC@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp>,             <ocrraao6lrn.fsf@ml.com> <m0xBXGZ-00001hC@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <m2afhbxnoo.fsf@altair.xemacs.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.106)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
From: Jan Vroonhof <vroonhof@math.ethz.ch>
Date: 18 Sep 1997 11:06:28 +0200
In-Reply-To: SL Baur's message of 17 Sep 1997 21:15:19 -0700
Message-ID: <bylo0v2dpn.fsf@midget.math.ethz.ch>
Lines: 17
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.4.55/XEmacs 19.15

SL Baur <steve@xemacs.org> writes:

> Should we put up 2.4 source on ftp.xemacs.org?
> 

Can we not simply make sure patches are correct for patch version 2.1?
[1]

<WHINE>
Why do FSF sit on gcc 2.8 for more than a year for stability
reasons and then f*ck up the one free program that is more important.
</WHINE>

Jan

[1] Who garantees that 2.4 works correctly just because it patches
XEmacs correctly.

