Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 13:00:01 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Hans-Bernhard Broeker <broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de>
To: George Foot <george DOT foot AT merton DOT oxford DOT ac DOT uk>
cc: djgpp workers list <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: Re: djlsr and include files
In-Reply-To: <E0z8uWH-0006PM-00@sable.ox.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.93.980819125324.20355B-100000@acp3bf>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 18 Aug 1998, George Foot wrote:

> On 18 Aug 98 at 16:23, DJ Delorie wrote:
> > If you are cross compiling, you need djlsr and djcrx.  You should not
> > need djdev.
> > 
> > If you want to build djgpp *with* djgpp, you need djlsr and djdev.
> > You should not need djcrx.
> 

> Is it not true that using djgpp v2.01 to build v2.02 is more like a
> cross compilation than a native build (since ultimately you're not
> linking to the v2.01 libraries at all)?  

Could be interpreted like that, but it's a bit far-fetched. E.g., it's not
a cross-compilation in the sense that you would not compile with with
CROSS_COMPILE (sp?) defined, and you will have to build some of the tools
twice to account for near-circular dependencies, which wouldn't be
necessary in a true cross-compilation.

> Would it be appropriate to write a User's Guide chapter about the 
> library sources?  

I don't think so. Rebuilding the whole thing from sources is not something
to be done by Joe Average User, ever, so there's no point in documenting
it in the users' guide. If at all, add a README in the src directory, that
will only be distributed as part of djlsr. In the essence: if you can't
find out how to build it from source by looking at the current kind of
distribution, you're probably not the person to undertake such a task,
anyway... I see it as a kind of protection of the innocent. 

Hans-Bernhard Broeker (broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de)
Even if all the snow were burnt, ashes would remain.