Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 11:24:26 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Martin Str|mberg <ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
cc: DJGPP-WORKERS <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: Re: [binkley AT sst DOT ncsl DOT nist DOT gov: djgpp and ld]
In-Reply-To: <199904202104.XAA12619@father.ludd.luth.se>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.990422112410.15748F-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
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
Precedence: bulk


On Tue, 20 Apr 1999, Martin Str|mberg wrote:

> > My only purpose in this suggestion is to ensure that the hardcoded
> > paths fail to accidentally pick up some non-djgpp package.
> 
> If that is the purpose, I suggest we hardcode them to sometihng that
> will always _fail_.

Sorry, I disagree.  Although every path name we can come up with
could, in theory, be used by some other package, in practice neither
${DJDIR} nor "c:/djgpp" has ever been reported as a problem.  The pain
of going through all the Makefile's and fixing an invalid prefix is
too much to ask.  In contrast, today people simply need to type "make"
and sit back.

Why should we punish 99.99% of users to satisfy 0.01%?