Message-ID:	<002e01be900e$b6c8afe0$b0003bd4@default>
From:	"Laurynas Biveinis" <lauras AT softhome DOT net>
To:	<djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>, "DJ Delorie" <dj AT delorie DOT com>
Subject:	Re: Script language for installer - opinions needed
Date:	Mon, 26 Apr 1999 19:59:12 +0200
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Priority:	3
X-MSMail-Priority:	Normal
X-Mailer:	Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3612.1700
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3612.1700
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

>Because you may know more about a zip than just a description of it.
>For example, do you install gcc or egcs?  You need to know that you
>choose *one* of those, not both.  The installer's description might be
>more suitable for this choice than a standalone description.

gcc/egcs choice and all similar issues would be covered by "types of
functionality", not by indvidual zips. (BTW. gcc/egcs choice could be
not a problem soon due to recent news?)

>I was thinking of *one* file in manifest, not a myriad of files named
>by extension.

One file is OK if it has all my mentioned info.

>> Are there any tgz in DJGPP distribution? Can't recall.
>
>No, but they compress much better than zips.

Are there any plans to switch?

>A djgpp installer that can to generic installs is OK.  A generic
>installer that can install djgpp is harder.  What I meant is I don't
>mind if the installer has special code in it to make installing djgpp
>easier to describe.


Yes, I am thinking this way too, may be I just phrased it wrong in
my previous posts.

Laurynas Biveinis

- Raw text -