On Sun, 11 Jul 1999 06:45:38 -0400, Matt Giwer
<mgi### [at] giwersworldorg> wrote:

>Nathan Kopp wrote:
>
>> Matt Giwer wrote:
>
>> > FYI:  For over six months I ignored mention of your "patch"
>> > thinking it was a Linux patch. Out of curiosity a couple days ago
>> > I took a look and found it was a Windows recompile. I am likely
>> > not the only person who has done this.
>
>> I can understand the confusion, but in these groups custom versions
>> have come to be called "patches" so I refer to it at times by that name.
>
>	Since there is no such thing as a Windows patch for us lowly
>users, simply calling it a Windows patch would get more interest,
>at least curiosity. 

Say what?

|C:\WINDOWS> patch --help
|Usage: /CYGNUS/CYGWIN~1/H-I586~1/BIN/PATCH.EXE [OPTION]... [ORIGFILE [PATCHFILE]]
|Input options:
|
|[...]
|Report bugs to <bug### [at] prepaimitedu>.

In any case, I call the superpatch a patch because everyone's always
called custom versions patches, and because many of those patches
actually are distributed as diffs, which are applied with 'patch' to
the original source code.  Mine isn't, because the diffs would
probably be larger than the source, but it is still distributed in the
form of source code that must be used to patch the official source
distribution, in a sense.  That I also distribute binaries for Windows
and Linux is simply a matter of convenience for those users who either
haven't got or are intimidated by a C compiler.

Post a reply to this message