Date:	Thu, 13 Mar 1997 20:26:43 -0800 (PST)
From:	Evan Dickinson <evand AT wsunix DOT wsu DOT edu>
Reply-To:	evand AT scn DOT org
To:	OpenDOS Mailing List <opendos AT mail DOT tacoma DOT net>
Subject:	Re: [opendos] FSSTND
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.LNX.3.95.970313210715.955S-100000@capslock.com>
Message-ID:	<Pine.OSF.3.95.970313200044.7409A-100000@unicorn.it.wsu.edu>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Sender:	owner-opendos AT mail DOT tacoma DOT net

On Thu, 13 Mar 1997, Mike A. Harris wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Mar 1997, Evan Dickinson wrote:
> 
[snip]
> > While I agree with the idea of a standard, I abhor hardcoded directory
> > names.  I've already got my own directory structure and I hate programs
> > that won't respect that.  
> 
> Well, I've got my own directory structure too, and mine is
> probably different from yours.  That is the reason for pushing
> for such a standard.  If everyone has things in the same spot, it
> makes life easier.  Everyone will want their current heirarchy to
> be "the standard" and none will become it.  As much as some
> people may not like the idea of such a standard, it will probably
> come to be anyway.  Hard coded directories are not necessarily
> part of this standard however.  I think that hard coded dirs
> should not be used.

First, let me see if I understand your proposition.  You'd like the
default directory for, say, utilities to be c:\util (or something).  A
user could then install to a different directory, but at a loss of
compatibility.  Correct me if I'm wrong here.

[snip]

> > Different users would enter their own directories instead of mine.
> 
> But possibly lose compatibility.  Also, they'd just be continuing
> to support the DOS chaotic directory structure.  My vote is
> definately for the standard.  Once again, it won't be hard coded
> dirs though.  If you install elsewhere, then you'll have to do a
> manual uninstall, or figure it out yourself.

They wouldn't lose compatability.  A program aware of this system would
look up the app directory, and then look there for whatever files it
needs.  It wouldn't be furthering chaos because all shared libraries would
be in lib, all utilities in a subdirectory of util.  As long as you
install into a directory that you've specified, everything will remain
compatible.

> > Then an installer wanting to install off of an app directory would
read > > this file, and ask if it should install into c:\dosapps,
d:\dosapps or > > another directory.  A simple "type paths.dir" would show
you were > > everything is.  > > > > This way, we keep our directories and
enforce a standard.  > > 

> Well, I think that some sort of comprimise
> between the two will > be reached.  It just needs to be discussed at
> great length.  
Agreed.  (Sorry about the formatting.  I accidentally hit Justify in
Pine.)

- Raw text -