From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: make depend
Date:	Tue, 18 Jan 2000 17:35:30 +0200
Organization:	NetVision Israel
Lines:	12
Message-ID:	<38848842.5F295616@is.elta.co.il>
References:	<Pine DOT UW2 DOT 3 DOT 95 DOT 1000117212419 DOT 28382B-100000 AT bryggen DOT bgnett DOT no> <861q99$kdr$1 AT nets3 DOT rz DOT RWTH-Aachen DOT DE>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	ras1-p119.rvt.netvision.net.il
Mime-Version:	1.0
X-Trace:	news.netvision.net.il 948209722 17791 62.0.172.121 (18 Jan 2000 15:35:22 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:	abuse AT netvision DOT net DOT il
NNTP-Posting-Date:	18 Jan 2000 15:35:22 GMT
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language:	en,ru,hebrew
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Hans-Bernhard Broeker wrote:
> For quite some time, we
> managed to get along by having 'specs' be part of the DJGPP, not the
> gcc package, but given the changes to 'specs' introduced by newer
> gcc's, that became a non-option.

Actually, the reason why distributing specs with DJGPP worked is that,
originally, a new release of DJGPP (i.e., djdevNNN.zip) was *always*
accompanied by a simultaneous release of ports of GCC and Binutils (and
sometimes Make and other core utilities).  That was possible as long as a
single person--DJ Delorie--released all of these packages himself; once this
ceased to be so, it is no longer a practical alternative.

- Raw text -