From:	Bruno Haible <haible AT ilog DOT fr>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Message-ID:	<15002.41851.731838.645310@honolulu.ilog.fr>
Date:	Mon, 26 Feb 2001 19:42:03 +0100 (CET)
To:	"Tim Van Holder" <tim DOT van DOT holder AT pandora DOT be>
Cc:	<djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
Subject:	RE: DJGPP specific patch for libiconv-1.5.1
In-Reply-To:	<CAEGKOHJKAAFPKOCLHDIEEAKCBAA.tim.van.holder@pandora.be>
References:	<15002 DOT 28215 DOT 961848 DOT 395747 AT honolulu DOT ilog DOT fr>
	<CAEGKOHJKAAFPKOCLHDIEEAKCBAA DOT tim DOT van DOT holder AT pandora DOT be>
X-Mailer:	VM 6.72 under 21.1 (patch 8) "Bryce Canyon" XEmacs Lucid
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

Tim Van Holder writes:

> I'd like to note that section 5.4 of the GNU coding standards (node 'Names'
> in the info version) indicates you should take the 8+3 restriction into
> account.

If you start citing arbitrary sections of the GNU coding standards, I
can do the same. Node 'System Portability':

   As for systems that are not like Unix, such as MSDOS, Windows,
   the Macintosh, VMS, and MVS, supporting them is usually so much
   work that it is better if you don't.

> While it does not require it, this would be especially valid when
> developing a package that is supposed to work on DOS/Windows.

Note that  dos != windows. I'd even say,  dos < windows.

> Admittedly, there are particularly many "problem files" in libiconv, so
> there would be some work involved

It is not about the amount of work. It is about the information it
conveys. "mail-2001-02-26-libiconv-vanHolder" conveys more information
than "mail0237".

You are saying "Cripple your package so it runs optimally on my
crippled system". I say NO.

Bruno

- Raw text -