Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 21:19:12 +0200
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Message-Id: <7458-Wed28Feb2001211912+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer: Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.3.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.6
In-reply-to: <97j6tu$np9$01$1@news.t-online.com>
	(just DOT another AT address DOT postoffice DOT net)
Subject: Re: GNU gettext problem
References: <5BF60CD649EDD411A04600B0D049F53A09246C AT hydmail02 DOT hyd DOT wilco-int DOT com> <97j6tu$np9$01$1 AT news DOT t-online DOT com>
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

> From: "Andreas Bauer" <just DOT another AT address DOT postoffice DOT net>
> Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
> Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 16:50:06 +0100
> 
> > Note that the name "Makefile.in.in" is NOT valid under DOS. Therefore
> > it's been changed to Makefile.in-in. This is done so that compiling
> > packages is possible under both DOS and Windows (with and without LFN
> > support).
> 
> I understand, but what can I as Unix developer do for the DJGPP folks? My
> project is generating the "configure" script from "configure.in", so
> while creating this configuration file the DJGPP ppl get the first
> errors... Once those files are created I could of course manually change
> the file names, even with a script, etc. But the DOS developers don't
> even get to see the "configure" script.

Could you please explain what is the problem you are trying to solve?
I've read your original message, and I still don't get what bothers
you with the configure scripts.

Many DJGPP ports of GNU utilities use the configure script to
configure and build the package with DJGPP tools, with minimal
changes.

> As I see it now, I can't have DJGPP people in my project involved
> anymore, cause they can't handle the GNU autoconf utilities anymore;
> gettext is just generating way too long file names.

I don't see why would you come to such a drastic conclusion.  Quite a
few DJGPP ports of GNU software are gettext-ready, so whatever the
problems that are involved, they have been solved more than once.