Mail Archives: djgpp/1998/01/01/12:00:45
In article <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 980101102419 DOT 6053B-100000 AT is>, Eli Zaretskii
<eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> writes:
On 31 Dec
>1997, Myknees wrote:
>> You
>>know, I got the sources, and after reading the "readme"s it seems like it
>>
>>would be so much easier to just "hack the binary" as you put it.
>
>If we all
>would to take the ``easier'' path we would never have DJGPP,
>and you could
>never use it the way you do now.
Well said.
>DJGPP is about sharing the fruits of your
>work with others. This
>sharing works because people who fix a bug, introduce
>a feature, or
>port another package, make their work available for others.
>Sure, it
>takes some effort to make things done so that you could share
>them.
>But IMHO, this sharing is our way to give back to people that
>helped
>create this software and made it run on MS-DOS/MS-Windows so you and
>I
>could have it for free.
>
>If you rebuild Binutils after correcting this
>problem, you could ask
>DJ Delorie to upload the corrected distribution to
>SimTel.NET, where
>others could then use it and avoid the problem which just
>took us few
>days to identify and debug. OTOH, hacking the binary fixes the
>things
>for you alone (as long as you have drive C:, which some
>machines
>don't).
Honestly, it never occured to me that anyone other than veterans could do stuff
like that. It is a bit odd to think of lots of people using binutils that I
compiled here on my computer.
However, you have convinced me, and you are very right in your ethic. I do
appreciate the effort that goes into creating and maintaining all the djgpp
stuff. It does make sense that I could take the trouble to get the stuff
(fileutils, textutils, sed, bash, etc.) and install them & them build the
binutils.
I was not kidding, though-- this is going to be a lot of work, since I know
nothing about all this stuff. Heck, I don't even have "patch.exe." And I'm
going back to work, starting tomorrow, so it will probably be quite a while
before I get anything done. If you're up for it, I may even email you (Eli
Zaretskii) if I get really stuck.
[snipped me complaining about not having stuff already]
>Try this. I
>think you should not have any problems at all except
>installing the necessary
>utilities. And I don't think you need to
>know how to use Make; you just need
>to type "make [Enter]" (after
>running the configuration script, as the
>instructions should tell
>you).
I will try that once I get the utilities installed.
> Is it dangerous to use LD after hacking it
>in this way, i.e.
> changing the "e:" to "c:"?
>
>Not dangerous, just selfish
>(no offense intended).
None taken. Selfishness is something almost everyone has in some form. It is
good when someone else points it out in a constructive way.
--Ed (Myknees)
- Raw text -