Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 12:16:42 +0200 (METDST)
From: Robert Hoehne <robert DOT hoehne AT mathematik DOT tu-chemnitz DOT de>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Cc: Molnar Laszlo <molnarl AT cdata DOT tvnet DOT hu>,
        DJGPP workers <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: Re: perl for djgpp
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.970806073626.4498T-100000@is>
Message-Id: <Pine.HPP.3.95q.970806120919.24186D-100000@newton.mathematik.tu-chemnitz.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 6 Aug 1997, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> 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.

Does this mean that I also had to include in the binutils
port all that other big stuff, which normally nobody needs
on DJGPP (libbfd.a, libopcodes.a libiberty.a, docs about
the internals of BFD, header files for the additional libraries
and so on ...) ?

I think this is not good, at least I thought until now when
making a port to trim the packages as most as possible which
is also done with the sources. But I thing DJ should say
something finally about this.

I think for instance that it makes no sense for a normal
user to download all that above mentioned stuff with the
binutils only becuase he want to compile something and all
the other things he will never use.

Robert
*****************************************************************
* Robert Hoehne, Fakultaet fuer Mathematik, TU-Chemnitz-Zwickau *
* Post:    Am Berg 3, D-09573 Dittmannsdorf                     *
* e-Mail:  Robert DOT Hoehne AT Mathematik DOT TU-Chemnitz DOT DE              *
* WWW:     http://www.tu-chemnitz.de/~rho                       *
*****************************************************************