31 Mar
2003
31 Mar
'03
10:31 p.m.
"Dimitrie O. Paun" <dpaun(a)rogers.com> writes:
However, if we are to depend on winegcc/winewrap, we need to be able to compile it anyway, no? And since it has a well defined semantics (that's much more commonly available than the fork/exec), it's not necessarily a bad addition.
Yes, it's just that I don't like to add non-Unix APIs to the portability layer, but I guess there are good reasons for making an exception here. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com