Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/1997/08/06/05:40:35
Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > > And please try to strip the sources to the needed
> > > files only for DJGPP which is common usage for
> > > such huge source package (see the bnu281s.zip
> > > file, which is hardly stripped down)
> > Ok, I'll try to make it smaller, but the LIB and POD directories are the
> > big ones, and they must be shipped with the distribution.
> This is not necessarily a Good Thing. An alternative would be to make
> several source zips (like perls1.zip, perls2.zip etc.) whereby the
> first one only holds the stuff required by MSDOS and the rest is in
> the other files. Partial sources are a pain when you need to look up
> Unix-specific code for a certain feature (that doesn't work on MSDOS),
> e.g., if you want to make it work.
This is a good idea. I'll do this.
> > > sources and build them for it's own. I for instance
> > > thought also the first time about including`libbfd.a
> > > and so on in the binary binutils package but then
> > > I decided to not to do so.
> > Then I'll skip libperl.a and the headers too.
> I disagree. I think that everything that is installed by the install:
> targets of the Makefiles should be available in the DJGPP port. IMHO,
> a person who ports a package should not decide which parts of the
> package are useful to the potential users, since the porter has no good
> basis for such decisions.
OK, but I think I could use the same idea here: perlb1.zip - executables
+ docs + some modules, perlb2.zip - rest of modules + headers +
libperl.a. What do you think?
Laszlo
- Raw text -