>Okay, the larger one is the static build, the smaller uses
>external libs. I'd opt for the static build as it has higher
>chances to work on all OS/2 systems, unless this is a non-issue
>on OS/2 systems. What do you think?
I do not think we should include make.exe or any other in SVN
Use of any is choice/responsability of users
We already have Win32 and DOS version there for convenience,
as it turned out to be one of the most frequently asked/messed
up matter. (even though it was documented in INSTALL)
It certainly makes life of builders much easier on these platforms.
We only can state in documentation ( INSTALL ) make381 as best choice
This information is already there. Although in case of OS/2
this seems to be not valid, as this is the *only* working option,
and even this version works only when using certain binary builds.
So, perhaps it's also a convenience for OS/2 users.
BTW, it's very easy to allow to override such "built-in" make
version, it's already done for win/dos platforms.
Anyhow since it's just more work for me, and you and Maurilio
are possibly the only OS/2 users out there, for me, anything is
good.
Brgds,
Viktor
_______________________________________________
Harbour mailing list
Harbour@harbour-project.org
http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
