Mail Archives: djgpp/1995/01/06/16:26:23
A.Appleyard wrote:
When I unzip FSDB091A.ZIP (full screen debugger), it unzips thus:-
C:\WORK\ZZZ>\djgpp\unzip386 -o \gcczip\fsdb091a.zip
Archive: /gcczip/fsdb091a.zip
inflating: manual
[ ...several uninteresting lines deleted... ]
inflating: unassmbl.h
i.e. everything into the root directory (which with me is
C:\DJGPP\) and there is no manifest file among them. Is this
intended?
(1) Is that "C:\DJGPP\" a typo? Shouldn't everything end up in
"C:\WORK\ZZZ"?
(2) These differences from the standard DJGPP packaging are presumably
due to the fact that fsdbXXXX is a contributed package. I note
that fsdb091a is (presumably) obsolete (it is no longer available
on SimTel).
Unfortunately, the current version (fsdb104) suffers from
the same packaging defects (sorry, Long Doan; we all appreciate
your efforts in improving the program, but this packaging is quite
far from that of the rest of the system, it's not very hard to fix
it, and flaming someone for not reading the manual included only
in the zipfile until after unzipping the manual into an unintended
directory is an unacceptable Catch-22, don't you think?
Especially considering that the read.me seems to suggest that
reading the manual is necessary only for people who are rebuilding
the debugger :-)
By the way, the read.me suggests unzipping everything into
%DJGPP%\go32\fs rather than into ...\ed, as you said in your
message. Is this a typo in the reply to Anthony, or an
inconsistency in the documentation?
I hope this packaging will be improved in the next release,
when the references to the noa (I suppose that stands for "Not On
Any [drive]" :-) directory are to be removed from the Makefile.
(3) I'm just curious, but what zip was used to make the distribution
file fsdb104.zip? Linux InfoZip unzip v. 5.0p1 complains that
"fsdb104.zip may be an executable" (then proceeds unzip everything
correctly). I haven't tried it with other unzips, so I don't know
whether this is unique to the Linux system.
(4) I note that the read.me (could this be renamed to "readme", as
that's what other DJGPP readmes are named? Excessively cautious
people like myself might then be able to do a "unzip -p fsdb104
readme.* | less" without first doing a "unzip -v fsdb104 | less" to
find out what the name of the readme file is, not that we *should
have to* do either....) file specifies that a GO32 v1.11.maint5.n
needs to be used. Is GO32 v.1.12[.maint[1-3]] compatible with
fsdb104? Or does the hacked version still need to be used? What
about future releases of GO32 (I know, V2 will be here RSN and the
won't be a GO32, but...) and fsdb? I ask primarily because Eli
Zaretskii's FAQ doesn't specify GO32 v1.11.maint5.n, and it would
be nice if the FAQ got this right.
(5) While we're on the subject of the future of DJGPP and fsdb, are
there concrete plans to convert fsdb for use with V2? Again, Eli
gives a short blurb on V2, and it would be nice (certainly not
essential, but nice) to have accurate information on that.
--Steve <turnbull AT shako DOT sk DOT tsukuba DOT ac DOT jp>
- Raw text -