X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f
X-Received: by 10.43.129.132 with SMTP id hi4mr125216icc.27.1383265020631;
        Thu, 31 Oct 2013 17:17:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.49.48.68 with SMTP id j4mr6523qen.13.1383265020600; Thu, 31
 Oct 2013 17:17:00 -0700 (PDT)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 17:17:00 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <201310311922.r9VJMRlD010701@delorie.com>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse AT google DOT com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=65.13.115.246;
 posting-account=p5rsXQoAAAB8KPnVlgg9E_vlm2dvVhfO
NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.13.115.246
References: <201310311922 DOT r9VJMRlD010701 AT delorie DOT com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <9ab32b7f-59e4-4bab-aed0-68e40da85a99@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: ANNOUNCE: DJGPP port of GNU Make 4.0 uploaded. (DJGPP 2.04 only)
From: rugxulo AT gmail DOT com
Injection-Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2013 00:17:00 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Bytes: 2214
Lines: 25
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
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

Hi,

On Thursday, October 31, 2013 2:16:12 PM UTC-5, Juan Manuel Guerrero wrote:
>
> This is a port of GNU Make 4.0 to MSDOS/DJGPP.

Thanks for your work on this.

>    The most important DJGPP specific change is that I have removed
>    the dependence of guile.  AFAIK there is no DJGPP port of guile
>    and I assume that there will never be.

Unofficially, there was at least one old port (circa 2002, apparently),
but I never tried it (don't know Scheme):

http://www.caddit.net/download/guiled.156a.zip

>    Please note that there will be no binary archive compiled with djdev203.
>    Using djdev203 increases the amount of porting work even more and I
>    have not the time to waist it in such a task.  Anyway the binaries
>    produced with djdev204 are as good as the ones produced with stock
>    djdev203.

No sweat, presumably the older versions work correctly for most needs. At
least, I don't know of many major differences between the various versions.
Mostly it sounds like fairly minor stuff, but I've not delved too deeply.