Date: Sat, 7 Jan 1995 05:03:44 +0900 From: Stephen Turnbull 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