Date: Sun, 6 Oct 1996 19:09:25 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
To: "John M. Aldrich" <fighteer AT cs DOT com>
Cc: DJGPP Workers Mailing List <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: Re: DJVERIFY 0.1a uploaded
In-Reply-To: <3254B000.4233@cs.com>
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.91.961006184830.2485K-100000@is>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII


On Thu, 3 Oct 1996, John M. Aldrich wrote:

> I have just uploaded the current version of DJVERIFY 0.1 alpha to DJ's
> /incoming directory.  It consists of the basic shell of the program,
> some diagnostics, and bug report generation, plus preliminary
> documentation.  Comments and suggestions are welcome.

First impression: very nice indeed.

Comments:

	1) The messages that indicate problems (like when $DJGPP is not
found) should attract attention in both the text printed to the screen and
the report file.  Make them stand out (with asterisks, exclams, preceeded
by ``ERROR:'' or with anything else), and print them surrounded by blank
lines).  Right now they are lost among the voluminous output, most of
which is just saying the gory details.  (I unset $DJGPP to see what
happens and at first thought that the program didn't detect this, since no
error message caught the eye.)

	2) I would suggest to call the `bug report' a `system report' or 
some such, at least in cases where no problems were detected.

Imagine:

	Computer: Creating a bug report...
	User:  What do you mean ``a bug report''??  You have just told
	       me that no problems were detected!!??

	3) When no problems were detected, I suggest telling this as the 
last line of the report, both to the screen and to the file.  And make 
this line stand out also.

	4) The program should IMHO test explicitly for the frequent case 
of embedded blanks in $DJGPP, and yell bloody murder if it sees this.  I 
keep seeing before my eyes the wise guy who will just shrug, thinking 
that he did define $DJGPP and disregard the rest of report as ``useless 
crap''.

	5) Why a separate batch file?  I think DJVERIFY itself should be 
a batch file, so users won't need to remember 2 names.

	6) I only glanced at the source for a few minutes, so I might be 
wrong, but it seemed to me that the programs are run by prepending the 
value of $DJDIR to them.  If so, I think this is not the best way.  Why 
not try to just run them?  If they are on the $PATH, they will run, even 
if $DJGPP is not set, and you get to diagnose more problems (and maybe 
even be smarter about them, knowing that the programs are installed after 
all).

There is also a function called `searchpath' in the library which will
help you look for a file along the $PATH without running it, which might 
be an alternative way of doing the above.