delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
X-Authentication-Warning: | delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f |
From: | Rugxulo <rugxulo AT gmail DOT com> |
Newsgroups: | comp.os.msdos.djgpp |
Subject: | Re: ANNOUNCE: Release 1 of the DJGPP port of GNU binutils 2.17 |
uploaded. | |
Date: | Fri, 28 Mar 2008 15:15:56 -0700 (PDT) |
Organization: | http://groups.google.com |
Lines: | 20 |
Message-ID: | <416b12f0-63a0-4273-9a1e-d2a88aad2e5e@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> |
References: | <200803281808 DOT m2SI8RNw030007 AT delorie DOT com> <52500715-4078-447e-a7c4-74d8996e25b3 AT n58g2000hsf DOT googlegroups DOT com> |
<4bdf89ed-3c10-4763-8ba0-aa565e07aba9 AT i12g2000prf DOT googlegroups DOT com> | |
<200803282158 DOT m2SLwGpj012616 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> | |
NNTP-Posting-Host: | 65.13.115.246 |
Mime-Version: | 1.0 |
X-Trace: | posting.google.com 1206742556 2639 127.0.0.1 (28 Mar 2008 22:15:56 GMT) |
X-Complaints-To: | groups-abuse AT google DOT com |
NNTP-Posting-Date: | Fri, 28 Mar 2008 22:15:56 +0000 (UTC) |
Complaints-To: | groups-abuse AT google DOT com |
Injection-Info: | a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com; posting-host=65.13.115.246; |
posting-account=p5rsXQoAAAB8KPnVlgg9E_vlm2dvVhfO | |
User-Agent: | G2/1.0 |
X-HTTP-UserAgent: | Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.13) |
Gecko/20080311 Firefox/2.0.0.13,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) | |
X-Original-Bytes: | 2239 |
To: | djgpp AT delorie DOT com |
DJ-Gateway: | from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp |
Reply-To: | djgpp AT delorie DOT com |
Hi, On Mar 28, 4:58 pm, DJ Delorie <d DOT DOT DOT AT delorie DOT com> wrote: > > No objections from my side but there are two conditions: > > - djtar.exe > > - unzip32.exe > > Both programs are and will be the standard unzipping programs. > > At least as DJ does not decide something different. > > I have no reason to consider a new format for distributing djgpp. It's still .ZIP, just smaller. ;-) But FYI, both p7zip and Win32's 7ZA (w/ HXRT) can work in pure DOS. So that's two reasons why 7-Zip would be okay. Plus, it'd be a lot smaller than normal .ZIP because of solid compression. And it's FOSS. But like I said, I don't necessarily suggest that, only that you consider making the .ZIPs smaller via AdvanceComp after-the-fact (or via 7-Zip at creation time). I mean, if it works (it does) and has no drawbacks (that I know of), why not??
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |