Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/2001/12/04/16:39:05
Hello.
Charles Sandmann wrote:
>
> > > By the way, should the .dsm be in the .mft?
> >
> > If you mean that the contents of the .dsm file should be in the .mft
> > file, then I don't think so: *.mft are supposed to hold a list of
> > files only.
>
> I mean should the line "manifest/djdev203.dsm" appear in the file
> "manifest/djdev203.mft"
Yes, it should.
You can install packages with DSMs two ways:
(1) Just unzip as usual.
(2) Use zippo to install.
If you use method (1), zippo will "know" about the package, but won't be
able to upgrade/uninstall it. You can uninstall it as normal using 'rm
@manifest/blah.mft'.
If you use method(2), zippo copies the DSM into its internal database and
stores MD5 hashes of all the files it's installed. It can then
upgrade/uninstall the package.
Things get ugly if you install with method (2), but then uninstall using
'rm @manifest/blah.mft'.
> Right now it does not (so doing rm @... doesn't remove the .dsm). I'm
> not sure how that works (I left it like 2.03, .dsm does not appear).
>
> Should then contents of the dsm be changed to allow refreshing over
> a current 2.03? (says replaces djdev < 2.03)
DSMs allow you specify the version in a number of ways. Since the update
will have the same major & minor version, I'd recommend using the
'patchlevel' or 'release' modifiers for the version. E.g.:
...
name: djdev
version: 2.03 patchlevel 1
...
replaces: djdev < 2.03 patchlevel 1
Bye, Rich =]
--
Richard Dawe
http://www.phekda.freeserve.co.uk/richdawe/
- Raw text -