From: ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se (Martin Str|mberg)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: "port"
Date: 31 Oct 1998 15:06:28 GMT
Organization: University of Lulea, Sweden
Lines: 63
Message-ID: <71f91k$1cn$1@news.luth.se>
References: <3 DOT 0 DOT 1 DOT 16 DOT 19981030090009 DOT 24879dc0 AT shadow DOT net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: queeg.ludd.luth.se
X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 950824BETA PL0]
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Ralph Proctor (ralphgpr AT shadow DOT net) wrote:
: 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!!

I don't think Allegro is a port. A port is something that has been
developed for one system and/or OS, and then moved/generalised/made to
work on another system and/or OS. I think Allegro was developed
originaly for DJGPP, hence it's not a port.

However all(?) the GNU program were originaly developed for Unix
system and later on made to work on *DOZE, hence they are ports.

: 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..

As long as you have a working program that works on a new system
and/or OS then IMHO you _have_ a port. Although the explanations how
to compile the program are so lacking it's not easily recompiled by
another person, you still have a port. The thing to do here I'd think
is to give feedback to the porter that he should include some better
instructions and what they should be. 

: 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.

Well, find and read all the documentation regarding the port is the
methodology. Then just whack-whack-whack on the code until it
compiles... And works... Or perhaps a mail to the porter or this
mailing list?


Right,

							MartinS