Re: Re: [UnixOS2] libc

On Thu, Jul 17, 2003 at 06:26:37AM +0200, Andreas Buening wrote:
> 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?). 

I never needed gcc sources.  Extract

  http://hobbes.nmsu.edu/pub/os2/dev/emx/v0.9d/emxsrcr.zip

then extract

  http://hobbes.nmsu.edu/pub/os2/dev/emx/v0.9d/emxfix04.zip

on top of it.

> 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?

Docs are a must.  emx/include from the development package should be
included too.

Tools may be nice to have too - but please, make them a separate
project.  They do not need so much QA, so it does not make sense to
treat them on the same list.

> 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?

The principal lesson of software development is that if nobody
*forces* docs and source to be syncronized, they won't be. :-( It is
crucial to have docs as close to the source as possible.  [With
`literate programming' as the extreme point.]

So please: no "docs later" approach.

Ilya