Steve Loughran wrote: > Peter Reilly wrote: >> +1 for ant98 plan. >> >> Peter >> > > One of the issues here is not just the .bat file, but > > -the implicit assumption that all windows platforms are on filesystem > with a granularity of 2s, that is, FAT32. We need to assume that > everything from Server 2003 and vista up is down to 1s granularity > > -any/all outstanding win98 bugs. We could move the win98.bat file (and > strip out win2k support there), but also state > "win98 is not supported, because not even MS support it". And list known > problems that arent fixed... >
The issue I would see is that by having a win98 batch file we are implicitly saying win98 is supported. I'd rather just see us treat it the same way MS does :-) Conor --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
