Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 14:26:16 -0400
Message-Id: <200107131826.OAA17804@envy.delorie.com>
X-Authentication-Warning: envy.delorie.com: dj set sender to dj AT envy DOT delorie DOT com using -f
From: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <20010713131629.B4442@kendall.sfbr.org> (message from JT Williams
	on Fri, 13 Jul 2001 13:16:29 -0500)
Subject: Re: another termcap library option
References: <3B4D8E2E DOT 20 DOT 635925 AT localhost>; <20010712114929 DOT D2337 AT kendall DOT sfbr DOT org> <3B4EE2B2 DOT 10414 DOT 724246 AT localhost> <20010713131629 DOT B4442 AT kendall DOT sfbr DOT org>
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


I would rather have a separate zip for termcap if we're porting
someone else's termcap.  That way, we can have more than one and let
the users pick, and maintenance/merging is easier.  Plus, most
programs don't need termcap, and those that do are expecting a
libtermcap.a.  It's harder to override termcap if it's in libc.a, and
if we don't have a libtermcap.a at all some programs might not realize
libc.a has termcap in it.

If we were to write one ourselves, that would be different, but I
still think we need a libtermcap.a.