home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Date: Mon, 18 Jan 93 03:59:40 est
- From: entropy@gnu.ai.mit.edu
- Message-Id: <9301180859.AA22430@kropotkin.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
- To: NTOMCZAK@vm.ucs.UAlberta.CA
- In-Reply-To: Michal Jaegermann's message of Sun, 17 Jan 93 20:16:34 MST <9301180318.AA05532@terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu>
- Subject: libraries
-
- >I think that splitting header files AND libraries into common,
- >MiNT specific and TOS specific is something which should have been
- >done a long time ago. Actually Jwahar, Eric and me we were talking
- >about that some while ago but there is quite a bit of work involved
- >in it. Maybe you noticed that for some while Jwahar was moving
- >quietly in this direction.
-
- The header files are all common, so there's no trouble there.
-
- >with a similar arrangement for libraries. One of flags '-mint' '-tos'
- >could/should be a default depending on a compiler configuration.
- >You risk that way at most a neccessity to recompile a driver, which
- >is really small program and can be redone even on the smallest
- >machines. So what are your comments?
-
- GCC already has a -mint flag to select the mint libs if you want to
- keep the TOS libs online as well.
-
- >I think also that LF vs. CR/LF controversy is based on a
- >misunderstanding. Maybe I got it wrong, but I thought that an
- >original proposition was about a form in which sources and updates are
- >distributed. It is true that 'patch' will barf on you (although
-
- You got it right...
-
- Cheers,
- entropy
-