Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 07:11:08 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Richard Dawe <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: gmp Attention: Eli Z
In-Reply-To: <394F619F.A605E302@phekda.freeserve.co.uk>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1000621070901.8230B-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Tue, 20 Jun 2000, Richard Dawe wrote:

> > This would be nice, but it is not absolutely necessary, for example
> > zippo comes with several DSM's for DJGPP ports already. Surely it can
> > search the package for a DSM and if it isn't found it can use one of the
> > DSM's that have been included with it (zippo) quite easily?
> 
> This is true, but then it puts most of the work on us, the zippo
> developers. I was hoping that the package maintainers would also help out
> by writing DSMs for their packages.

I have no doubt that placing this burden on zippo maintainers is a bad 
idea.  Not only because maintainers could help, but mainly because only a 
person who has a good knowledge of the package internals can write a 
useful DSM.