Message-Id: <3.0.1.16.19981030090009.24879dc0@shadow.net>
X-Sender: ralphgpr AT shadow DOT net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (16)
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 09:00:09
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
From: Ralph Proctor <ralphgpr AT shadow DOT net>
Subject: "port"
Cc: eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il, dj AT delorie DOT com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Eli, DJ, and anybody else who has sweated this out.

I understand something that has been "ported to djgpp" to mean that the
program
can be unzipped, installed and run compatibly with djgpp. Even a make
procedure
would still apply PROVIDED THAT A MAKEFILE IS INCLUDED IN THE PACKAGE.

Alas, I have found a number of darn useful applications deemed to be
"ported to djgpp"
that are really not ports at all. Of course I want to know if you agree
with my
definition of a port.

For example: Allegro is a true djgpp port. After all, hitting make [Enter]
is no more a
problem than hitting install [Enter]. But imagine that Allegro did not come
with its
makefile. Oh boy, it would take some work!!

Examples: Gnuplot and Calc are deemed to have djgpp "ports". I don't think
so. I have
managed to work around the problem with these, but I would hardly say I had
djgpp
ports of these fine utilities..

So there appear to be some good utilities usable with djgpp but not truly
ported.

I may be guilty of two sins--
1.) Not searching diligently enough. I plead not guilty.
2.) Not knowing how to compile a large amount of code provided with the
package
that is downloaded. Well, here I have a problem--but did I really have a
"port"?

A recommended methodology would be appreciated.

Ralph