"Dimitrie O. Paun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
