Message-ID:	<000601be8f2e$860fc2c0$86033bd4@default>
From:	"Laurynas Biveinis" <lauras AT softhome DOT net>
To:	"DJGPP Workers" <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
Subject:	Script language for installer - opinions needed
Date:	Sun, 25 Apr 1999 17:14:24 +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

Hello all,
a while ago SET showed me that problems can occurr 
with LBInstDJ when installing C++ compiler because 
files are not always extracted in required order. He 
suggested sorting by name but I think this is 
acceptable just as temporary workaround. Then I 
thought about  ensuring extraction order manually -
 but it was a bad  idea, because it must be updated 
with every new DJGPP or its utilities version and it 
gets more complicated if some zips are splited, joined 
etc. Later someone on this mailing list suggested 
including zip-picker's functionality in LBInstDJ. If done 
properly, that means almost complete LBInstDJ's 
independence from DJGPP (except registry). So it 
would be generic installation utility and all packages,
zips, types of functionality must be descriped with 
some kind of scripting language. And here comes
the technical part - below is sample of subset of it 
concerning types of functionality:

# This is a comment
# 1. Basic Execution Enviroment (gets ID = 1)
Functionality:
Name="Basic Execution Enviroment"
Description="It is required for running programs developed with DJGPP"

# 2. Developing C programs (gets ID = 2)
Functionality:
Name="Developing C programs"
Description="This includes C compiler and libraries"
Depends=1 # Basic Execution Enviroment

What do you think of it? As you can see, it does not
describe indvidual zips - which zip to which kind 
of functionality belongs, nor operating 
systems, nor packages independent from
main sorts of functionality - such as
Info Viewer, Allegro,... I have almost completed
code which parses this and puts everything
properly into my data structures.

One particular question - which way would be
better, including a list of zips with type of 
functionality or describe each zip independently
and tell to which functionality it belongs? IMHO,
this way is better, because anyway I should 
describe every zip separetely - to mention its
name, description...

And almost forgot - co-workers are always 
welcome! Do you want to see generic installer
for DOS and solve all these package maintaining
problems once and forever?

Laurynas Biveinis

- Raw text -