From:	"Mark Moore" <Mark DOT Moore AT Alation DOT comxxx>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
References:	<Pine DOT A41 DOT 4 DOT 05 DOT 10002121451200 DOT 192362-100000 AT ieva01 DOT lanet DOT lv>
Subject:	Re: Building gcc-2.95.2 under DJGPP
Lines:	21
X-Newsreader:	Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
Message-ID:	<iLEp4.18932$S71.35178@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	63.23.15.45
X-Complaints-To:	abuse AT earthlink DOT net
X-Trace:	newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net 950474830 63.23.15.45 (Sun, 13 Feb 2000 12:47:10 PST)
NNTP-Posting-Date:	Sun, 13 Feb 2000 12:47:10 PST
Organization:	EarthLink Network, Inc.
X-ELN-Date:	Sun Feb 13 12:47:10 2000
Date:	Sun, 13 Feb 2000 20:47:10 GMT
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

So, this doesn't seem like a problem to the DJGPP community?  It seems to me
(based on a quick scan of this mailing list) that I'm not the first guy to
have a problem trying to build GNU source under DJGPP.

I guess I'm not buying the "I think that many changes cannot go in official
sources (especially ones to make source archive more DOS friendly)"
argument.

If the GCC source can support someof the odd-ball configurations implied by
their config.geuss script.  They can certainly support DOS boxes under
Windows 9x/NT.

I'll go see what I can stir up over there, but I quess my main point is that
if supporters of DJGPP aren't pushing to get the changes into GNU official
releases (especially GCC), who will?  And, if noone's demanding they include
the support, why wouldn't they leave it out?

This is only partially a flame.  I'd really like to see how the major
contributors to DJGPP feel about this.  DJ?  Andris?

- Raw text -