Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 07:36:13 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
To: Molnar Laszlo <molnarl AT cdata DOT tvnet DOT hu>
cc: DJGPP workers <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: Re: perl for djgpp
In-Reply-To: <33D36D10.3DF7CA9F@cdata.tvnet.hu>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.970806073535.4498S-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk


On Mon, 21 Jul 1997, Molnar Laszlo wrote:

> But I have some questions about the binary distribution: what files
> should I include in it?

A good way to know is to look at the Makefiles' "install:" targets.  I
usually try to include everything that's installed on Unix in the
binary distribution (except those which don't make any sense on
MSDOS).

> Should I make a separate .zip for the perl library or not? SHould I
> include the .pod files or just make the .html docs? 

A single .zip is usually the best, unless some parts are rarely used
and are LARGE.
ip etc.) whereby the
first one only holds the stuff required by MSDOS and the rest is in
the other files.  Partial sources are a pain when you need to look up
Unix-specific code for a certain feature (that doesn't work on MSDOS),
e.g., if you want to make it work.

> > sources and build them for it's own. I for instance
> > thought also the first time about including`libbfd.a
> > and so on in the binary binutils package but then
> > I decided to not to do so.
> 
> Then I'll skip libperl.a and the headers too.

I disagree.  I think that everything that is installed by the install:
targets of the Makefiles should be available in the DJGPP port.  IMHO,
a person who ports a package should not decide which parts of the
package are useful to the potential users, since the porter has no good
basis for such decisions.