Drew Parsons wrote: > It was the latest README in the new gcc-defaults. I imagine they > weren't trying to be presumptuous but were just using it as a place > holder. The document itself says it's not fully updated yet. One way or > another, it'll have to be changed to something. Maybe they'll get it > right by chance :)
The correct term to use to refer to etch in a file like this is "etch". -- see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
