Date:	Wed, 4 Aug 1999 09:43:03 +0300 (IDT)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	Hans-Bernhard Broeker <broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de>,
	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: Changes in Binutils 2.9.1
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.990803103346.1847C-100000@is>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.990804094218.6630A-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Tue, 3 Aug 1999, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> For other solutions, we have to make assumptions about availability
> of certain tools (stubify, bin2h, or od and sed/awk/perl).

It turns out we only need stubify and bin2h.  Can you even have a
cross-build environment without these?  They are part of djdev, so I'd
expect them to be installed on any system that generates DJGPP
programs.  Am I missing something?

> People building their own binutils, IMHO, is a symptom that a binary
> package is needed.

That's true, but what do you suggest as a solution?  To nag the person
who released the last port to make a new one?  It won't work.  Nobody
is under any obligation to do that, and free time is sometimes at
premium.  So it seems reasonable to try to make things easier for
``mere mortals'' to build the package for themselves.

Also note that some problems are not DJGPP-specific, they might be
genuine deficiencies in Binutils, in which case you need to nag the
GNU maintainer about a new release.  For example, lately several
people wanted support for MMX and SSE instructions.

- Raw text -