Re: EMX on DOS

[Paul Edwards]

"Larry Jones" <lawrence.jones@eds.com> wrote in message 
news:mailman.3063.1067900838.21628.bug-cvs@gnu.org...
> > 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
does C89.

I thought you loved receiving patches?  I've sent them.

BFN.  Paul.