Re: MiNT TO UNIX

[Juergen Lock <nox@jelal.north.de>]

Christian Lynbech writes:

> No, but given the size of the standard atari B/W monitor, the text
> screen isn't that bad.  ...

 and given the current performance of GEM... :)  but thats what virtual
consoles are for, then you can use GEM and still have fast text screens.
(next update coming soon...)

> Chris also writes:
> > > [...stuff about i) fs standards or ii) making porting/configuring easy...]
> > Definitely the second option, but I'd certainly settle for #1 in the
> > mean-time.  :-)
> 
> I do not see a contradiction here.

 what i ment is when we can assume that ii) everyone has got a working
compiler etc. like on unix then we would not have to hack together
binary distributions for packages like Cnews that were never ment to be
installed from binaries.  i.e. it would save work for the people doing
the ports and noone would be stuck with other peoples configuration
options because they are compiled into the binaries... (and these are
not just paths and directories.)

>  For one, a decent bourne shell and
> a fully working test program, lets you configure most GNU software
> pretty easy, already now.

 exactly.

>  But some fs standard would give additional
> benefits:
> 
> 1) Less need of patching.
> Adding some environment variable requirement, probably means that you
> still need to patch even GNU packages, and this is somewhat a pain,
> when the next version of (say) the fileutils are out.

 yup.  making every compile-time option an environment variable is
not a good solution...
> 
> 2) Not absolutely dependent on sources.
> If you want a UNIX setup, you are pretty much required to have the
> sources so you can configure to your specific setup. There is no
> standard, so in theory you risk that one guy uploads the GNU diffutils
> configured with all programs in /usr/local/bin and another guy uploads
> RCS which expects diff to be A:\GNUBIN so that you just can't win.
> This project is also a commitment to ensure that there are utilities
> working within the standard (me thinks).

 agreed.  for many things standardized search paths are enough to
exchange binaries so we certainly should have them.

 cheers
	Juergen
-- 
J"urgen Lock / nox@jelal.north.de / UUCP: ..!uunet!unido!uniol!jelal!nox
								...ohne Gewehr
PGP public key fingerprint =  8A 18 58 54 03 7B FC 12  1F 8B 63 C7 19 27 CF DA