Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 14:25:45 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Mark Habersack <grendel AT ananke DOT amu DOT edu DOT pl>
Reply-To: grendel AT ananke DOT amu DOT edu DOT pl
To: "John M. Aldrich" <fighteer AT cs DOT com>
cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>,
        Hans-Bernhard Broeker <broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de>,
        djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Install thingy
In-Reply-To: <325DBD00.5851@cs.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.95.961011141720.29964B-100000@ananke.amu.edu.pl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Thu, 10 Oct 1996, John M. Aldrich wrote:

>Exactly.  After all, if the install program itself runs, then djverify
>ought to be able to run as well.  One might also want to compile the
>installer with the special stubify so the djverify batch file will work
>with it too.
I decided, following advices, to make the installed a real mode program. It
assures it will run everytime on any system.  So the idea with stubify falls
apart.  But I thought about another way of invoking djverify.  Installer might
call it with different argv[0] (just as DJGPP 'links' do). djverify seeing it
is being run from within the installer might tune its output to contain ONLY
data necessary for the installer.  
I'm not sure, however, whether TC 2.0 will allow me to modify argv[0].  AFAIK,
TC uses DOS calls to invoke external programs and this means that they are
ALWAYS passed path\myname.exe as argv[0].  If this is true, install might use
another approach to notify djverify it is run as its child.  I could hook INT
2Fh and install a callback known to djverify.  The latter would check if
installer is in memory and behave according to the result.

>You'd still need to distribute cwsdpmi with the installer, which would
>effectively make it an integral part of the djgpp package, wouldn't it? 
>It is distributed separately now, but there seem to have been so many
>problems getting people to use it that this might not be a bad idea. 
>(The only problem being keeping up with newer versions of cwsdpmi...)
Idea is certainly good.  This would cease some part of questions from users
that don't know why their programs don't work.

>BTW, I will work on making the djverify output properly formatted ASAP,
>as soon as I've finished putting in all the detection functionality. 
>Substance before form, right?  ;)  Mark, when you get finished with a
>preliminary version of the installer, I'll hopefully be ready to send
>you information on my formatting structure so we can coordinate.  I
>think I'm going to be putting in some major work this weekend...
A thought has just crossed my mind.  Would it be possible for you to generate
a BINARY report file to be used by install only?  djverify would generate it
only if the conditions described above would be true. 

_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
Decriminalised genocide provided door to door Belsens. Pandora's box of
 Holocausts gracefully cruising satellite infested heavens.
Waiting, the season of the button, the penultimate migration. Radioactive
 perfumes, for the fashionably, for the terminally insane, insane
Do you realise, do you realise, do you realise?
This world is totally FUGAZI!
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- http://ananke.amu.edu.pl/~grendel -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_