Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 09:50:38 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Mark Moore <Mark DOT Moore AT Alation DOT com>
cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Building gcc-2.95.2 under DJGPP
In-Reply-To: <iLEp4.18932$S71.35178@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1000214094859.12009L-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: dj-admin AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Sun, 13 Feb 2000, Mark Moore wrote:

> So, this doesn't seem like a problem to the DJGPP community?

Yes, it is a problem.  Nobody had yet time and/or motivation to fix
it, but that doesn't mean we think it's a non-issue.

> I'll go see what I can stir up over there, but I quess my main point is that
> if supporters of DJGPP aren't pushing to get the changes into GNU official
> releases (especially GCC), who will?  And, if noone's demanding they include
> the support, why wouldn't they leave it out?

You are right, but you are forgetting one aspect: "supporters of
DJGPP" includes you.  Please feel free to join the effort where you
think help is needed.

> This is only partially a flame.

Why would someone try to flame people who use up their free time to
develop free software and then give out their work for free?