Mail Archives: djgpp/1998/11/01/09:54:53
On Sun, 1 Nov 1998, Ralph Proctor wrote:
> But when somebody says "I uploaded a port of ___________to djgpp" then
> one would expect more.
You cannot realistically expect more than this: that the uploaded
package will build in exactly the same environment as the one used
by the porter. Anything else requires either access to many different
platforms, or a lot of time devoted to testing, or a lot of experience
in porting to DJGPP (usually, all of the above ;-).
The above might seem like an extreme, but I came to this conclusion
based on several dozens of ports I've done in recent years. It is just
too damn hard to do a clean job that will work for everybody (even
though, to my personal amazement, I seem to succeed in that lately).
Anybody who tried knows that it takes several iterations to get things
right; you might try this yourself some day to fully appreciate the
amount of gotchas involved.
> But sometime in the future, IMHO, since this is a very good math
> accessory to EMACS, I do think the porting problem should be
> solved for DJGPP.
If you'd agree to do the mundane job of packaging and uploading this, I
promise to help you get the Makefile to work. It worked for me.
> A "Here's how I got _______________to work with DJGPP" put in the
> mail archives would do just as well.
This is a vast job, if done right. (Simply listing all the hacks one
needed to do just to make a package compile isn't my idea of such an
entry.)
- Raw text -