Mail Archives: djgpp/2000/06/02/04:21:14
> From: pjfarley AT banet DOT net (Peter J. Farley III)
> Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
> Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2000 01:22:14 GMT
>
> May I make the suggestion that networking headers should not even be
> present in djdev if there is no library support for them?
Sorry, this isn't possible, at least not in the simple way you suggest
(i.e. removing the headers). Posix requires those headers, and DJGPP
is Posix-compliant.
I'm sure there are other solutions to such problems. However, to
devise them, one needs to know the particulars (like what headers
and/or macros does the configuration procedure look for).
> But it really would be finer if the zip-picker asked if
> you wanted DOS networking capabilities, and gave you the appropriate
> networking zips as well as the basic development zips, and if the
> networking zips you downloaded worked just like all of the other fine
> ports which with we have been gifted by the DJGPP workers.
A similar solution (of having several separate libraries) was found to
be a PITA in DJGPP v1.x: people expected everything to be magically
present in one library that's scanned by default by the linker, and
constantly complained about unresolved externals. So separate
libraries for djdev seem like a bad idea, in the long run.
> For those new to the networking libraries/headers, it would be nice to
> see a short FAQ somewhere
Experience shows that FAQs are not read too religiously...
> Of course, it would also be finer if application package developers
> didn't incidentally *assume* so much, and allowed for environments
> that don't actually support networking. <*Sigh*>
If the problems with their assumptions are reported to them, they
might do something. But that shouldn't prevent us from trying to make
things easier from our end, as much as possible, without compromising
compatibility and compliance to standards.
- Raw text -