Re: slrn 1.0 [2007-08-25]?

* Peter J Ross ([email protected]) wrote [Wed, 070718 23:27]:

> > Better to drop the possibility to port slrn to architectures which don't
> > come along with iconv (and which are not that very important for the
> > existing slrn-community in my eyes) and gain stability and active
> > developement in exchange for that.

> This would be a big change from the history of slrn (and s-lang).
> One of slrn's distinctive features is its exceptional portability.
> It would be sad if VMS support were lost.

I don't see why this should drop support for slrn on VMS. libiconv
exists and is available on VMS. 

Although there seems to be a small bug in the autoconf/automake
stuff for libiconv because I had to add  "-liconv" to the LDFLAGS by
hand to compile slrn on a old solaris (6?, 7? - don't remember) with
no iconv in the libc.

Cheers,

 Thomas

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/