delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi   search  
Mail Archives: djgpp/1999/07/21/07:30:33

X-Authentication-Warning: acp3bf.physik.rwth-aachen.de: broeker owned process doing -bs
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 13:29:41 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Hans-Bernhard Broeker <broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de>
X-Sender: broeker AT acp3bf
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: initialization file for gnuplot 3.7
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.990721105431.7757F-100000@is>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.93.990721131446.202D-100000@acp3bf>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Wed, 21 Jul 1999, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jul 1999, Hans-Bernhard Broeker wrote:

> The important aspect here is documentation.  You message seemed to
> imply that these file-name changes aren't documented in the official
> docs of the GNU packages.  I know only one case where it isn't
> documented, and that's GDB.  Others have the special DOS init file
> name documented in the manual.

Ooops, seems I didn't recognize that. I thought these changes only 
ever were documented in the README.djg or README.dos files that came
with the DJGPP ports.

> > This change from '.program' to '_program' is only necessary because the
> > program itself didn't pay attention to MS-DOS, before the DJGPP port was
> > made.
> 
> I fail to see the fine difference.  Why does it matter whether a
> problem was fixed as part of the DJGPP porting or by generations
> before that?  By and large, DJGPP is the only DOS configuration that
> is supported by GNU packages nowadays, anyway; all the other DOS
> configurations are usually long broken due to lack of support.

[FYI: gnuplot is not a GNU package. The name's a coincidence]

gnuplot is vastly different, in this aspect. It contains pre-made
makefiles to compile it with lots of DOS and Windows compilers, ranging
from Borland C++ 3.1 for 16bit compilation all the way to DJGPP and M$ VC.
All this has been the case since at least gnuplot-3.5, released back in
1993.  The initialization file for all these long-existing DOS versions
has always been called 'gnuplot.ini', and this behaviour has been clearly
documented, as well. Changing it now, for no apparent reason than personal
taste, would be totally unreasonable, IMHO.

[...]
> I usually prefer that a program looks for the original Unix name, and
> if not found, falls back to the DOS surrogate (yes, I know Emacs
> doesn't follow that).  How is that surrogate called is less important,
> but my HO is that _gnuplot is better than gnuplot.ini, unless
> gnuplot.ini was used for a long time (breaking back-compatibility with
> no good reason is never a good idea).

That last one is exactly the reason I'm opposing against this particular
change. 'gnuplot.ini' is existing practice for well over 5 years, in all
DOS versions of gnuplot. Changing only the DJGPP version would break
users' expectations without any good reason. 

Hans-Bernhard Broeker (broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de)
Even if all the snow were burnt, ashes would remain.

- Raw text -


  webmaster     delorie software   privacy  
  Copyright © 2019   by DJ Delorie     Updated Jul 2019