At 04:44 30/06/03 -0500, you wrote:
>On Mon, 2003-06-30 at 04:04, Frances Coakley wrote:
> > Many thanks - that works but now leaves me with a different problem in 
> that
> > index files produced by 2.4 and 2.2.3 seem incompatible - how stable is 
> 2.4
> > to put into a production environment ?
>
>Well, that's always debatable.  But, it should be more stable than
>2.2.3.  Best option would be to thoroughly test the features you need to
>use.
>
>
>Testing is especially important on Windows.  The daily Windows build
>really doesn't get tested by any of the developers until a problem is
>reported.  I normally don't even look at the build logs unless I get an
>email from the automated build system.
>
>
>
> > On a related note is it possible to specify name for prop file - I can
> > choose index name to be ISO9660 compatible but not it seems the associated
> > property file
>
>That is an interesting problem.  Perhaps we could change the file
>extension to something three characters long instead of .prop?  .pro or
>something?  I don't suppose the name of the property file really
>matters.  A name like "index.pro" is ISO9660 compatible, right?
I do test on Windoze but obviously that doesnt necessarily test other 
distbs (eg my no-include prob under Windoze didnt seem to appear elsewhere)
one problem in prop file name  - the x.y.z format is not allowed as well - 
an additional flag (eg -fx ?) would suffice to specify prop file for me
I am about to move to an EPIA C3 processor based quiet PC as a win dev site 
(really only needed due to dreamweaver) - in your compile script what 
processor do you build it for ? as C3 is not 686 compatible - missing cmov 
instn - a build for 386, 486 or I think 586 is ok
Frances Coakley
editor@manxnotebook.com - Web site www.manxnotebook.com