From:	"Tim Van Holder" <tim DOT van DOT holder AT pandora DOT be>
To:	<djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
Subject:	RE: Where does gcc -o foo make foo.exe
Date:	Sun, 14 Jan 2001 21:02:02 +0100
Message-ID:	<NEBBIOJNGMKPNOBKHCGHMEJKCAAA.tim.van.holder@pandora.be>
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Priority:	3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority:	Normal
X-Mailer:	Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
In-Reply-To:	<2110-Sun14Jan2001202601+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
Importance:	Normal
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
X-MIME-Autoconverted:	from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id PAA30418
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

> Perl is not the only issue.
> 
> I think that a package which supports DJGPP should be able to be built
> out of the box, exactly like on Unix.  Since Unix and GNU/Linux users
> are not required to have Autoconf, I think DJGPP users should not be
> required to have it as well.  They should be able to run the configure
> script and then say "make".  That's what INSTALL says in each package.
I wholeheartedly agree. And this will indeed be the case for released
DJGPP packages. If whoever maintains a package makes the necessary changes
(and they'd have to to get a binary distribution ready), the user will get
the required behaviour (after all, the average DJGPP user is expected to
use official DJGPP packages, not GNU tarballs). And if the maintainer then
submits those changes to the relvant GNU maintainer, there's a decent
chance that the next version will require much less work (if any).

In any case, I'm fine with changing gcc to not automatically append
.exe until such time as all (well, most) GNU packages DTRT out-of-the-box.

- Raw text -