Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 21:59:14 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <199708080159.VAA02622@delorie.com>
From: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
To: robert DOT hoehne AT mathematik DOT tu-chemnitz DOT de
CC: eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il, molnarl AT cdata DOT tvnet DOT hu, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: 
	<Pine DOT HPP DOT 3 DOT 95q DOT 970806120919 DOT 24186D-100000 AT newton DOT mathematik DOT tu-chemnitz DOT de>
	(message from Robert Hoehne on Wed, 6 Aug 1997 12:16:42 +0200
	(METDST))
Subject: Re: perl for djgpp
Precedence: bulk


> > 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.
> 
> 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 the porter may have a clue about what parts of a package are
normally used by the user.  For binutils, the library is rarely used
by the user, but for perl, the various perl modules and pod files are
commonly used.

The one doing the work gets to make the choices, providing the GPL is
met and the DJGPP package conventions are used (directory, manifest,
etc).  If they do a poor job, the users will let them know.