Date:	Wed, 7 May 1997 10:39:34 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Pierre Phaneuf <pp AT 55-174 DOT hy DOT cgocable DOT ca>
Reply-To:	pierre AT tycho DOT com
To:	OpenDOS Mailing List <opendos AT delorie DOT com>
Subject:	Re: DOS utilities (was Re: A few FS notions)
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.SUN.3.93.970507093656.23273A-100000@xs1.xs4all.nl>
Message-ID:	<Pine.LNX.3.95.970507103225.23868B-100000@55-174.hy.cgocable.ca>
MIME-Version:	1.0

On Wed, 7 May 1997 yeep AT xs4all DOT nl wrote:

> > Yes, sounds good, but it has to be EASIER than RPM's, and the
> > "RPM" file must come ready to run as either a self extracting EXE
> > or a ZIP file IMHO, *NOT* as an RPM file.
> 
> How about a zip file renamed to rpm? :-)

Not RPM, because they wouldn't be compatible with the *real* RPM system...
But I was thinking about some archive file renamed to some other
extension...

> > UTILITY package (16-bit OpenDOS version)
> > 	OPENDOS\DELTREE
> > 	OPENDOS\BACKUP
> > 	OPENDOS\STACKER
> > 	OPENDOS\RESTORE
> 
> I assume with this package you mean all the stuff usually supplied with a
> DOS?
> Stuff like xcopy and....erm..is there more?
> Well, you know what I mean.

I guess so, but we'll see to the content later...

> So then we'd have two packages to get a full (as we are now used to for a
> DOS) OS.

Not necessarily. You see, I could do a "classic DOS utilities" package and
a "bash, fileutils and friends Unix-like utilities" package. You get to
choose FREELY! (boy, do I love this word!) ;-)

> How about a package with replacements for the other two.
> 4DOS, BASH, CSH, etc in stead of COMMAND.COM.
> And some other stuff that can be replaced.

Exactly! That's why COMMAND.COM should be put in a separate package! That
would make a lot of small packages to download, but would give you the
choice!

> Yes, definitly!
> As long as the log files are in ASCII, so you can update them when you
> relocate or manually delete a package.
> (Ever tried pulling that of when you manually deleted something under
> Win95, in stead of with the uninstall? Registry...here I come :-) ) 

Not sure about that... Would make heck of a slow database, and why would
you like to relocate? If all packages are put in sensible places... I know
DOS doesn't have a filesystem standard (in term of directory
organization, there a place for each things) like Unix, but a minimal
standard would be fine... I like the "/ProgramFiles/Company/Product"
hiearchy of Win95 for external programs... Or maybe it is time to make a
filesystem standard? It needs not to be as complex and far-fetched as
Unix, but a good simple one would be nice...

Pierre Phaneuf

- Raw text -