Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 23:18:28 +0300
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To: lauras AT softhome DOT net
Message-Id: <9003-Thu10May2001231828+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer: Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.3.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
CC: djgpp AT delorie DOT com, broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de
In-reply-to: <20010510213753.B297@lauras.lt>
Subject: Re: DJGPP is based on ...
References: <20010509174656 DOT A326 AT lauras DOT lt> <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1010510122204 DOT 4017C-100000 AT is> <20010510213753 DOT B297 AT lauras DOT lt>
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

> From: "Laurynas Biveinis" <lauras AT softhome DOT net>
> Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 21:37:53 +0200
> 
> > Personally, I find it disturbing that one of the oldest GCC ports,
> > which is in continuous maintenance since 1989, is never--not once,
> > except in some obscure place in the FAQ--mentioned in the GCC Web
> > pages.  Perhaps I'm naive.
> 
> You aren't. But the fact that DJGPP port is one of the oldest doesn't
> per se ensure automagical support. It requires more commitment of
> DJGPP porters to common GCC developing process.

My problem is that DJGPP is not mentioned, as if it didn't exist, not
with the fact that GCC maintainers don't develop the DJGPP port.