From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12706 invoked by alias); 19 Aug 2003 01:43:49 -0000 Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: binutils-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 12691 invoked from network); 19 Aug 2003 01:43:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pax.ratloop.com) (64.83.63.25) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 19 Aug 2003 01:43:46 -0000 Received: from pcp903190pcs.cnorth01.va.comcast.net ([68.57.155.50] helo=emmet.jeffsys.net ident=mail) by pax.ratloop.com with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 19owTy-0002j0-00 for ; Mon, 18 Aug 2003 21:44:26 -0500 Received: from 64-83-63-25.cavtel.net ([64.83.63.25] helo=bigchief.ratloop.com) by emmet.jeffsys.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 19owWM-00010R-00 for ; Mon, 18 Aug 2003 21:46:54 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030818214111.0249b2a0@wheresmymailserver.com> X-Sender: (Unverified) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 01:43:00 -0000 To: binutils@sources.redhat.com From: Pete Gonzalez Subject: Fwd: Re: [gnu.org #56622] http://sources.redhat.com/binutils/ Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-SW-Source: 2003-08/txt/msg00310.txt.bz2 [sourcemaster@sources.redhat.com suggested that I forward this to binutils@sources.redhat.com] ----------Forwarded Message--------- Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 20:26:43 -0400 To: D. E. Evans From: Pete Gonzalez Subject: Re: [gnu.org #56622] http://sources.redhat.com/binutils/ Cc: sourcemaster@sources.redhat.com, bug-directory@gnu.org At 06:52 PM 8/18/2003, D. E. Evans wrote: > > I make this point because the "snapshots" folder that you link does NOT > > contain the latest binutils release. > >That link is from Red Hat's webpage, not ours. I'm sorry to keep bothering you. I've CC'd this e-mail to what I believe are the appropriate addresses. This is the "binutils" listing you referred me to in the GNU Free Software Directory: http://www.gnu.org/directory/binutils.html It lists the current version of binutils as "2.13.1", and under "obtaining" it links the RedHat web site: http://sources.redhat.com/binutils/ Now, the RedHat page lists the current version as "2.14", although (as I mentioned) the "snapshots" FTP directory in the "Obtaining binutils" section there does not actually have 2.14 or 2.13.1. It sounds like you are saying this is not GNU's page, so I should be e-mailing RedHat about this. However, the footer on the RedHat web page says "Please send comments on these web pages to webmasters@www.gnu.org". It would seem that the following things need to happen: - gnu.org should update their directory page to link 2.14 instead of 2.13.1 - redhat.com should replace "webmasters@www.gnu.org" with the RedHat webmaster - Both pages should add a link to ftp.gnu.org/gnu/binutils, since this is apparently the only directory that is kept up to date with the official releases The reason that I'm clamoring about this is that I have downloaded and built the wrong tarball on three separate occasions before finally figuring out my mistake. Honest I'm not actually stupid, I'm just effectively that way when in a hurry. :-) Thanks, -Pete