Hi Tom! > > Okay for me to drop SETVER. > because you don't understand it's purpose (your implementation implies > that at least)
I understand that SETVER can do much more than CALLVER. It was intended to use CALLVER as a kludge when VERSION= is not enough. So it is a nice surprise that the 1.0 TODO list calls CALLVER a good enough SETVER implementation. I think CALLVER is *not* an implementation of SETVER. But I also think that SETVER is *not* needed for FreeDOS 1.0 - because basically only MS programs are picky about the exact version number anyway. > > Still GPL is preferred, of course :-). > I'm pissed by GPL - for known reasons. As told, public domain or MIT or BSD license is fine for me, too. Several of my own tools are public domain. > > Good for the existing code base. > what 'existing' source base ? > there's no MASM sources around. I compiled "MASM" (or was that "TASM"?) NANSI with ArrowsoftASM. Maybe it was always intended for Arrowsoft compilation, but it certainly LOOKS like MASM/TASM syntax in some way. > and noone cares enough to port TASM->NASM, unless you DO IT YOURSELF. No thanks. Only if 1. I want to modify it and 2. Arrowsoft cannot process it and 3. it is worth the effort. There are enough people who OWN TASM out there, so they can modify stuff if porting to NASM/ArrowASM would not be worth the effort. > > And I really hope that it will be possible to compile the kernel with Turbo > > C in the near future. > this sentence disqualifies you as an even semi serous contributor to > the kernel list. please go away. I am not planning to follow Barts and Luchos example after your polite invitation, although it is a funny idea of having only you and Arkady left, discussing 10 byte optimizations which are embedded in 1000 line diffs. But I seem to remember that you wanted to migrate from DOS to Win yourself... will ANYBODY be left? I have NASM, ArrowASM, TC2, DJGPP, TP5.5 - and really enough work with THOSE FreeDOS programs which DO compile with those compilers. Luckily I am not the only FreeDOS programmer, so those programs which do NOT compile with my compilers can just as well be fixed by the other programmers. Eric. PS: I suggest that nobody leaves the list at all. But I will not be happy when the kernel will eventually stop to be compileable in Turbo C, although I know very well that Turbo C is not recommended - for optimization reasons. ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by Sleepycat Software Learn developer strategies Cisco, Motorola, Ericsson & Lucent use to deliver higher performing products faster, at low TCO. http://www.sleepycat.com/telcomwpreg.php?From=osdnemail3 _______________________________________________ Freedos-kernel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-kernel
