Date:	Mon, 24 Jul 2000 01:49:41 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id:	<200007240549.BAA14211@indy.delorie.com>
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT delorie DOT com>
To:	mrs AT windriver DOT com
CC:	law AT cygnus DOT com, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com, gcc AT gcc DOT gnu DOT org,
	martin AT loewis DOT home DOT cs DOT tu-berlin DOT de, zack AT wolery DOT cumb DOT org
In-reply-to:	<200007232055.NAA01910@kankakee.wrs.com> (message from Mike Stump
	on Sun, 23 Jul 2000 13:55:15 -0700 (PDT))
Subject:	Re: GCC headers and DJGPP port
References:	<200007232055 DOT NAA01910 AT kankakee DOT wrs DOT com>
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

> From: Mike Stump <mrs AT windriver DOT com>
> Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 13:55:15 -0700 (PDT)
> 
> For this reason, I am against your modification to my
> scheme.  I'd rather simplify it, and risk the bugs, and fix any that
> might arise, than do as you suggest.

My suggestion was for the case that something like a switch to
`configure' was deemed a lesser evil than risking bugs.  If it's the
other way around, I'm with you.

> Take a look at config/*/* and you'll start to see what I mean.

Yes, I think I'm quite familiar with that--how shall I put
it?--magnificent bazaar ;-)

- Raw text -