On 17 Mar 2004 at 18:28, Dilwyn Jones wrote: > How much of SMSQ/E for Qx0 is modular and how much "inbuilt" (i.e. has > to be rewritten every time a new SMSQ/E is released)?
Nothing has to be "rewritten"for the Q60 (or any other machine) every time a new SMSQ/E is released, unless some changes are required by the files that were changed (e.g. different screen handling for colour drivers). > Just wondering if making a new Q60 SMSQ/E would be a matter of bolting > on Q60 specific modules to standard SMSQ/E releases? There already are Q60 specific modules. >(...) i.e. whoever is building and releasing the new SMSQ/E > gets paid to produce a Q60 version. That way, SMSQ/E for Qx0 remains > up to date and someone gets paid to produce the new releases alongside > the other versions. I'm "building" and releasing the new SMSQ/E (for QPC, Q60 and others) I certainly don't want to get paid. I put the building into quotation marks, because this is mainly just a matter of incorporating the source files graciously donated by those wishing to contribute to SMSQ/E. "Building" the executables then is just a matter of pressing some buttons. Q60 SMSQ/E is up to date. I sometimes wonder how often one has to repeat oneself onthis list to be - if not understood- at least heard. The whole purpose of the registrar is to make sure that versions for all machines remain as up to date as is possible. Two examples: a - the colour drivers. (need I say more?) B - Specific Q60 development: Fabrizio Diversi made specific versions of some of the source files for the Q60. These used a machine code instruction the Q60 had difficulty in handling - Fabrizio changed them by removing these instructions and replacing them with analoguous code and the new files are now part of the official Q60 SMSQ/E code tree. All this is, of course, transparent to the user, as it should be. (...) > > The software Peter is producing seems too important (...) Not if it isn't made available. Wolfgang
