X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 22:26:42 -0400 Message-Id: <200810080226.m982QgOe025692@envy.delorie.com> From: DJ Delorie To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com In-reply-to: (do_not_have@nohavenot.cmm) Subject: Re: GCC 4.3.2 doesn't find cc1.exe References: <6kscdnF9ffloU1 AT mid DOT individual DOT net> <6kv8ogF9t53aU1 AT mid DOT individual DOT net> <6l16r5F9r656U1 AT mid DOT individual DOT net> <200810072041 DOT m97KfuYN017232 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk > > unzip is the djgpp standard installation tool. > > IIRC, I first dl'd DJGPP by ftp as .zip's from a mirror. How was I > supposed to open them? Does anyone read the README any more? If you started with the topmost README and followed the readme's as indicated, you'd see that djgpp includes an UNZIPPED copy of unzip32.exe just for this purpose. > If I see a .zip, should I even consider looking for and finding a > "special" .zip decompressor to undo those "special" .zip's which I > had no idea were special? Or, would one use pkzip/pkunzip or Winzip > because they are the standard? I'd like to think that people would read the installation instructions. You can use the others, but you can't use their defaults - you have to override them correctly to get a usable installation. > > unzip is the djgpp standard installation tool. > > According to whom? Me, the creator of DJGPP. > What makes you think you get to tell me what decompressor I use with > DJGPP? Isn't that a bit of an overbearing assumption? Well, if you want to use one of the other ones and end up with a non-functional installation, go ahead. There are many good reasons to use a djgpp-aware unzip program, but if you want to try to figure out the install without reading and following the instructions we spent years ironing out, go ahead. > > Given that djgpp's installation instructions tell you to use unzip > > (specifically, the unzip32.exe that comes with djgpp) and how to use > > it, > > Why would anyone do that considering that PKZIP/PKUNZIP has been the > DOS *standard* for a couple *decades*? pkzip isn't the only zip/unzip package that's that old. > Isn't DOS the reason you're using .zip format instead of .tgz or > .bz2 or .rpm?!?! Er, no. > Isn't your compiler for DOS? Yes. > Aren't your files in .zip format? Since you know so much about zip files, why don't you tell me why it's important to NOT use pkunzip or WinZip. Go ahead, I'll wait. Use the mail archives if you get stuck. Or read the installation instructions. > Why would anyone do that with when they likely already have pkzip, > winzip, 7-zip, installed? Because it "just works", which is more than I can say for the other unzip programs, at least, if you're not aware of the non-obvious way the other programs need to be invoked to get them to work right. > Does it really make any sense they'd download an use another .zip > decompressor - just for DJGPP? If they want their installation to just work, yes. > > I really do expect people to be familiar with unzip when > > installing djgpp. > > Why? Because the documentation tells them how to use it. And because if you're about to install something as complex as djgpp, and write software with it, you should have a clue or two about such things. We've often said that if you can't get djgpp working, you probably are going to have a hard time with programming too. > *Both* DJGPP's unzip32.exe (v5.50) and pkunzip.exe (v2.50) require a > DOS LFN driver like DOSLFN to write LFN's under RM DOS. Close, but not quite right. > I see no mention of and LFN driver within DJGPP doc's. And you won't. The whole point of using unzip32 is that is uses the SAME lfn logic as every djgpp program you'll be installing, so it always does the right thing as far as lfn vs sfn vs numeric tails as the other djgpp programs will be expecting. pkzip doesn't. > (Are you just being !$#$ing ***wipe today DJ?) That was totally uncalled for. I've been doing this for nearly twenty years, I don't need your help figuring out how to install it. > In fact, your doc's tell how to install DJGPP on just about every > other system, *except* DOS!!!! Could you be more specific? The web site points everyone at the zip picker, which includes DOS as the first option. The READMEs assume DOS, and call out exceptions for everything else. > But, then since DJGPP's for DOS, it shouldn't have long filenames > anyway, should it? We have LFN drivers for plain DOS also, but DOS 7 (aka "windows") has LFN built-in. The DOS API certainly does have support for long file names, else djgpp wouldn't be able to use them at all. > If it's *truly* for DOS, It's for the DOS API, not just the old MS-DOS 2..6. > it'd only have 8.3 filenames. Close - it should run on 8.3 filesystems, that doesn't mean that the files are in the zip file as 8.3. The idea is to still be found properly when truncated to 8.3. I check for that on every *b.zip upload. Most have longer names that are 8.3-safe, so that if you install them on an LFN system you get the names you expect. > Right? Sorry, wrong. > Also, I'm unsure why you seem overly concerned, almost hostile, > about using "unzip" instead of issues with recent posts to > comp.os.msdos.djgpp. Because correcting misinformation about installation instructions is far easier, and far more important, than obscure programming problems. Besides, I'm not the current authority on those problems. > Use or not of "unzip" really seems utterly trivial to me. Nearly twenty years of helping people install DJGPP says otherwise. pkunzip gets LFN vs SFN wrong. WinZip tends to put each package in its own subdirectory. Either results in an unusable installation.