Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 14:24:18 +0200 (IST) From: Eli Zaretskii X-Sender: eliz AT is To: Ralph Proctor cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com, dj AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: "port" In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.16.19981030090009.24879dc0@shadow.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com On Fri, 30 Oct 1998, Ralph Proctor wrote: > I understand something that has been "ported to djgpp" to mean that > the program can be unzipped, installed and run compatibly with > djgpp. Even a make procedure would still apply PROVIDED THAT A > MAKEFILE IS INCLUDED IN THE PACKAGE. Ideally, yes. However, since we live in a non-ideal world, some ports might be less than ``ideal'', especially if they are lying around for a long time and nobody has cared enough to get them up-to-date with the latest versions of compiler/linker/libraries/Windows/whatever. > Examples: Gnuplot and Calc are deemed to have djgpp "ports". I don't think > so. I have never said Calc was ported. I did say I have managed to make it work for me, and I have sent my patches and instructions to apply them to several people who asked for them, but I didn't have enough time to create a DJGPP-compatible package good enough to be uploaded for general use. A single person can only do this much. As for Gnuplot, my information indicates that there's a public beta release of version 3.6 which should support building with DJGPP, at this URL: ftp://cmpc1.phys.soton.ac.uk/pub/gnuplot-beta340.tar.gz > A recommended methodology would be appreciated. The best methodology (IMHO) would be if everybody who made some package work for them would make some more effort to package it in DJGPP-standard way and upload it to SimTel. If you see some supposedly ported package that needs work to really build with DJGPP, and contacting the person who did the original port doesn't work, just go ahead and upload the version that worked after you changed that.