From: Bruno Haible MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15002.41851.731838.645310@honolulu.ilog.fr> Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 19:42:03 +0100 (CET) To: "Tim Van Holder" Cc: Subject: RE: DJGPP specific patch for libiconv-1.5.1 In-Reply-To: References: <15002 DOT 28215 DOT 961848 DOT 395747 AT honolulu DOT ilog DOT fr> X-Mailer: VM 6.72 under 21.1 (patch 8) "Bryce Canyon" XEmacs Lucid Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk Tim Van Holder writes: > I'd like to note that section 5.4 of the GNU coding standards (node 'Names' > in the info version) indicates you should take the 8+3 restriction into > account. If you start citing arbitrary sections of the GNU coding standards, I can do the same. Node 'System Portability': As for systems that are not like Unix, such as MSDOS, Windows, the Macintosh, VMS, and MVS, supporting them is usually so much work that it is better if you don't. > While it does not require it, this would be especially valid when > developing a package that is supposed to work on DOS/Windows. Note that dos != windows. I'd even say, dos < windows. > Admittedly, there are particularly many "problem files" in libiconv, so > there would be some work involved It is not about the amount of work. It is about the information it conveys. "mail-2001-02-26-libiconv-vanHolder" conveys more information than "mail0237". You are saying "Cripple your package so it runs optimally on my crippled system". I say NO. Bruno