Mail Archives: djgpp/2000/01/26/11:57:38
On Wed, 26 Jan 2000, Scott J. McCaughrin wrote:
> : this raises one particular suspicion, in me: You may have
> : unpacked each .zip to its own subdirectory, instead of having them all
> : spit their contents directly below the main DJGPP directory.
>
> That does not sound like a satisfactory solution to me. Since you already
> have a `bin' directory under DJGPP and RHIDE has its own `bin', you will
> get a conflict from the unzipper (such as `winzip') requesting if you
> want to over-write. Now you may indeed want to merge the two bins, but
> that will make for a larger `bin' and you will no longer have the
> convenience of keeping RHIDE separate.
Nevertheless, this is *exactly* how DJGPP is supposed to work: it expects
all binaries be in the same `bin' subdirectory, all the Info files be in
the same `info' subdirectory, etc. If this unified directory structure
is not preserved across different DJGPP packages, nothing will work!
As for Winzip reporting conflicts about existing directories, the
solution is simple: don't use Winzip. The recommended program to unpack
DJGPP packages is unzip32.exe, available right near the zip files. It
might lack fancy graphic interface, but it does the job of installing
DJGPP quietly and efficiently.
> This wouldn't be a problem if RHIDE had an automatic `uninstall' but it
> does not, and since it is not a mature IDE, I wouldn't recommend a merge
> of bins without an automatic uninstall.
Section 4.8 of the DJGPP FAQ shows a simple command which reliably
uninstalls a given package. So, effectively, every DJGPP package
does have an automatic uninstall.
> Perhaps it would be nice if the
> next release of RHIDE got smart and -- instead of just complaining --
> announced some remedy to the user as to how to fix up environments.
It would be even nicer if all those who are so profoundly unhappy with
how RHIDE (and other DJGPP tools) work, would sit down, make a change in
the offending package, and then submit the changes to the maintainer(s).
Calling high-quality software you got for free ``amateurish'' and
``immature'' just because it lacks install.exe doesn't strike me as a
useful attitude. Free software evolves and gets better only as long as
users are willing to contribute.
> Wading through layers of documentation doesn't cut it.
The installation instructions are in the README, right near its
beginning. IMHO people who don't want to spend a minute reading it
deserve what they get.
- Raw text -