From: H. P. A. <hp...@zy...> - 2003-03-13 21:31:26
|
Frank Kotler wrote: > > Do we really need a "Cygwin binary"? I can build Nasm under Cygwin, I > think, but the only thing different is it won't run *except* under > Cygwin. "Normal" builds of Nasm (even Nasm16) seem to work fine... > Seem kind of useless to me. I can hide the category completely. I tried to make DOS binaries today, but it seems the DOSEMU DPMI problem has returned (can't find files when running DPMI application run from other DPMI applications under DOSEMU), so it might take a bit longer. > Just got a note from Jacob Moorman pointing out that we're still listing > "nasm.2y.net" as a homepage. (Nasm's associated with a whole *list* of > dead URL's, ain't we?) Berk, did you have somebody that was going to > help out with the www stuff? Or should I take a shot at it? What is the current URL? I thought that was still the "official" one? -hpa |