Xref: utzoo news.groups:16797 comp.os.os2:596
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!unido!tub!fauern!lan!rommel
From: rommel@lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de (Kai-Uwe Rommel)
Newsgroups: news.groups,comp.os.os2
Subject: Re: CALL FOR DISCUSSION of comp.binaries.os2
Message-ID: <1064@tuminfo1.lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de>
Date: 23 Jan 90 12:04:40 GMT
References: <676@banyan.UUCP> <1990Jan9.220230.14165@uwasa.fi> <1990Jan10.193337.28096@agate.berkeley.edu> <5083@loper.cs.vu.nl> <1581@castle.ed.ac.uk>
Sender: news@lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de
Reply-To: rommel@lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de (Kai-Uwe Rommel)
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: Inst. fuer Informatik, TU Muenchen, W. Germany
Lines: 21

I vote for a separate newsgroup comp.binaries.os2 but a separate
comp.sources.os2 is not needed (I think) because I would like to see
sources and binaries of programs posted together to one group in the
future (and I will do so).

If the creation of c.b.os2 depends on the fact if a moderator can be found
and no one wants to do it or no one has the time (probably the case for
most of us) or the ressources, c.b.os2 should be created even without a
moderator. If c.b.os2 is not created and binaries are still posted to
comp.os.os2 the situation is not better.

-----------

I got many replies to my article about GNU tools which I have available.
I think I will wait posting them until comp.binaries.os2 is created.
Many wrote that they don't have even the original sources, so sending
the diffs only (as suggested by one person) would not be a good idea.

Kai Uwe Rommel
Munich
rommel@lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de