Date:	Sat, 7 Jan 1995 05:03:44 +0900
From:	Stephen Turnbull <turnbull AT shako DOT sk DOT tsukuba DOT ac DOT jp>
To:	ld AT netrix DOT com
Cc:	DJGPP AT SUN DOT SOE DOT CLARKSON DOT EDU
Subject:	a funny in one of the djgpp zip files

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 -