X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f
From: Rugxulo <rugxulo AT gmail DOT com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: ANNOUNCE: Release 1 of the DJGPP port of GNU binutils 2.17 
	uploaded.
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 15:15:56 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <416b12f0-63a0-4273-9a1e-d2a88aad2e5e@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
References: <200803281808 DOT m2SI8RNw030007 AT delorie DOT com> <52500715-4078-447e-a7c4-74d8996e25b3 AT n58g2000hsf DOT googlegroups DOT com> 
	<4bdf89ed-3c10-4763-8ba0-aa565e07aba9 AT i12g2000prf DOT googlegroups DOT com> 
	<200803282158 DOT m2SLwGpj012616 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.13.115.246
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1206742556 2639 127.0.0.1 (28 Mar 2008 22:15:56 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse AT google DOT com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 22:15:56 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse AT google DOT com
Injection-Info: a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com; posting-host=65.13.115.246; 
	posting-account=p5rsXQoAAAB8KPnVlgg9E_vlm2dvVhfO
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.13) 
	Gecko/20080311 Firefox/2.0.0.13,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
X-Original-Bytes: 2239
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Hi,

On Mar 28, 4:58 pm, DJ Delorie <d DOT  DOT  DOT  AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
> > No objections from my side but there are two conditions:
> >   - djtar.exe
> >   - unzip32.exe
> > Both programs are and will be the standard unzipping programs.
> > At least as DJ does not decide something different.
>
> I have no reason to consider a new format for distributing djgpp.

It's still .ZIP, just smaller.  ;-)  But FYI, both p7zip and Win32's
7ZA (w/ HXRT) can work in pure DOS. So that's two reasons why 7-Zip
would be okay. Plus, it'd be a lot smaller than normal .ZIP because of
solid compression. And it's FOSS.

But like I said, I don't necessarily suggest that, only that you
consider making the .ZIPs smaller via AdvanceComp after-the-fact (or
via 7-Zip at creation time). I mean, if it works (it does) and has no
drawbacks (that I know of), why not??