[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: EMX on DOS
Re: EMX on DOS
Tue, 04 Nov 2003 10:23:30 GMT
"Larry Jones" <address@hidden> wrote in message news:address@hidden
> > Incidentally, I still haven't found out why when going
> > from cvs 1.11.<m> to cvs 1.11.<n> the executable jumped
> > in size enormously.
> What are you talking about? We've seen no "enormous" jump in executable
> size on the test platforms.
That's because you didn't use my test platform. It was an
unexpected and unwelcome change.
> > C code is portable. C code that depends on other software
> > to be installed is not. Portable C code will compile on
> > EMX 0.9d. I would never be in the position of having to
> > install a different C compiler, just to get the source code to
> > compiler. Or a different version of bash. Or a different
> > operating system. Or a different installation of a particular
> > operating system. That ain't portable!
> No, it isn't. And it isn't required for CVS, either. You can always
> configure it manually. It's a lot simpler if you have the tools to run
> configure, since it will then do all the heavy lifting for you, but it's
> not a requirement.
Configure IS heavy lifting. As I've explained on the multiple
platforms I have attempted to use it on. Not one, multiple.
Of course, I could be the only person in the world who's
ever had a problem with configure. Or maybe I'm just
the first person to report it? POSIX compliant code
on the other hand simply works (on a POSIX system). So
I thought you loved receiving patches? I've sent them.
Re: EMX on DOS, Larry Jones, 2003/11/01
Re: EMX on DOS, Paul Edwards, 2003/11/02
RE: EMX on DOS, Rick Genter, 2003/11/03
Re: EMX on DOS,
Paul Edwards <=
- Re: EMX on DOS, (continued)