Date:	Thu, 25 Jun 1998 20:46:44 +0300 (IDT)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
To:	"Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET)" <salvador AT inti DOT gov DOT ar>
cc:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: DJGPP v2.01 malloc wasting 4Kb
In-Reply-To:	<m0ypFlu-000S3xC@inti.gov.ar>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.980625203303.29169B-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0

On Thu, 25 Jun 1998, Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET) wrote:

> > In those cases where patched functions are *required* to build the 
> > binary, this is explained in the README.  In some extreme cases, I even 
> > put the patched sources of library functions into the source 
> > distribution, so people could patch their libraries before rebuilding.
> 
> Very annoying and time consuming! 

Typing 2 commands to compile a source and put it into libc.a is hardly 
time-consuming.  Anyway, that's the best I can do, and it takes a lot of 
effort as it is.  I'm sorry if my work annoys you.

> >  For all 
> > practical purposes, the patched libc *is* the intermediate version. 
> 
> For this reason I want it a little bit more clear and official.

I cannot make it more official than it already is: I use that library all 
the time.  What else can you ask for?

> > Also, please note that some important patches in v2.02 are for the tools 
> > (like djtar and redir).  I don't think these are less important than 
> > libc.  Your suggestion ignores those bug-fixes.
> 
> Yes, that's why I think it must be v2.10 and be a whole distribution. And the 
> patched just a v2.02 and only some binaries, libc.a for sure, perhaps another 
> thing, not sure.

Somebody needs to do the effort of putting this release out the door.  
Who will that be?  Without a volunteer, there's no hope to make it 
happen any faster than v2.02 is moving now.

The way to make things happen in DJGPP is for the motivated person to do
most of the work.  You are obviously the most motivated, but you tell that
you cannot do that.  So we are back at square one, with good intentions
but no people who are ready to do it better than it is done until now. 

> I want something easier for the user. So if, for 
> example, I distribute the sources of my editor I can simply say: "needed: libc 
> v2.xx" and the user can get it from the main distribution. I think it isn't too 
> much work.

You can say that today: get patched libc.a from ftp://... etc.  If the
only thing that you want is to make the same libc available from
SimTel.NET, I have nothing against it.  I fail to see how would that make
it better or more ``official''.  It just makes it slightly more easy to 
obtain, since there are a lot of SimTel mirrors throughout the world.

- Raw text -