Re: Re: [UnixOS2] libc

Adrian Gschwend wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 00:08:32 +0200, Andreas Buening wrote:

[snip]

> Should I create an empty repository or should I take some codebase as
> initial repository? The second option means less work for the person
> who would checkin the initial source otherwise.
> 
> If someone can point me to this "current" OS/2 source I will set up the
> repository tomorrow.

If I remember correctly I've installed the sources that are part
of gcc 2.8.1 from hobbes (gccsrc*.zip but I'm not sure) plus some
update from the emx fixes (the last one, i.e. 0.9f?). 

The question is how we want to organize the code. Do we want just the
libc code (emx/src/lib and emx/src/os2 (?)) or also the tools and
the docs?

After thinking about this it seems reasonable for me to separate
the libc and its docs from the tools (we could name the package
emxlibc or emxlib or emxlibs or emxdll). Something like

emx/src/lib -> lib
emx/src/os2 -> os2
emx/src/include/defs.h -> lib/defs.h
emx/include -> include
(Have I missed anything important?)

The docs can be handled later. I've just looked at some of the Makefile.
At least the hardcoded paths have to be changed. Opinions?


[snip]


Bye,
Andreas