Sender: ml AT delorie DOT com
Message-ID: <33E8463D.1D2A2283@cdata.tvnet.hu>
Date: Wed, 06 Aug 1997 11:39:09 +0200
From: Molnar Laszlo <molnarl AT cdata DOT tvnet DOT hu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: DJGPP workers <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: Re: perl for djgpp
References: <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 970806073626 DOT 4498T-100000 AT is>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > > And please try to strip the sources to the needed
> > > files only for DJGPP which is common usage for
> > > such huge source package (see the bnu281s.zip
> > > file, which is hardly stripped down)
> > Ok, I'll try to make it smaller, but the LIB and POD directories are the
> > big ones, and they must be shipped with the distribution.
> This is not necessarily a Good Thing.  An alternative would be to make
> several source zips (like perls1.zip, perls2.zip 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.

This is a good idea. I'll do this.

> > > 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.

OK, but I think I could use the same idea here: perlb1.zip - executables
+ docs + some modules, perlb2.zip - rest of modules + headers +
libperl.a. What do you think?

Laszlo