Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:27:35 +0200
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Message-Id: <2950-Tue18Mar2003162734+0200-eliz@elta.co.il>
X-Mailer: emacs 21.3.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
In-reply-to: <200303181339.OAA03927@lws256.lu.erisoft.se> (message from Martin
	Stromberg on Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:39:21 +0100 (MET))
Subject: Re: elefunt results
References:  <200303181339 DOT OAA03927 AT lws256 DOT lu DOT erisoft DOT se>
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

> From: Martin Stromberg <Martin DOT Stromberg AT epl DOT ericsson DOT se>
> Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:39:21 +0100 (MET)
> 
> Eli said:
> > FWIW, I think it's better to use an explicit "./foo" paradigm than
> > fiddle with the value of PATH in the Makefile.
> 
> I do too. Except that makefile is some multi-make one. If we don't
> care about other make implementations I could clean it up (and use
> ./).

That makefile was heavily hacked to tailor it to DJGPP.  We don't
expect to use any Make other than the GNU Make.  So if you need GNU
Make specific features, please feel free to use them.