From: elf AT netcom DOT com (Marc Singer)
Message-Id: <199604021502.HAA07895@netcom16.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: djgpp port of RCS? (New improved summary)
To: itmiller AT taz DOT dra DOT hmg DOT gb
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 07:01:38 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <4jdsgh$jih@trog.dra.hmg.gb> from "Ian Miller" at Mar 28, 96 11:17:36 am
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1343
Sender: elf AT netcom DOT com

> |>How is it better than the DJGPP port by Marc Singer (<elf AT netcom DOT com>, 
> |>see the DJGPP FAQ for details)?...
> |>
> It isn't. Nobody mentioned it when I asked. (I'm not the only one who
> forgets to check the FAQ it seems :-). However, I got the djgpp port
> from ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/el/elf/rcsdos yesterday and I have the
> following observations:
> 
> The djgpp port has nicer wildcard behaviour ("rlog RCS\*" will find .h and
> cc files for instance), and a nice soft link facility.
> 
> The SimTel version comes with the GNU documentation.
> 
> Both work fine and seem to be able to work with each other's RCS files.
> 
> The djgpp version has the edge because it uses the djgpp diff utils, and
> because it does not require its own DOS extender(s).

I'd like to point out that the port I am supporting is the newest
version of RCS, one that supports binary files with the new -k switch.
Also, I did not do this to better the previous port work.  Instead, I
have been trying to get Paul Eggert to include my patches and
configuration file with the standard distribution.  If those of you
who use RCSDOS would kindly drop him a note saying how great RCS is
and 'wouldn't it be nice if they could use softlinks (and a few other
extensions) by compiling the standard distribution', we might find
harmony once again.

Marc Singer