From: mert0407 AT sable DOT ox DOT ac DOT uk (George Foot) Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: DJGPP is in WAY too many pieces Date: 20 Jun 1997 09:24:48 GMT Organization: Oxford University, England Lines: 43 Message-ID: <5odi90$9mt@news.ox.ac.uk> References: <19970617192900 DOT PAA16139 AT ladder02 DOT news DOT aol DOT com> <33A6F444 DOT 19EF AT cs DOT com> NNTP-Posting-Host: sable.ox.ac.uk To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Precedence: bulk John M. Aldrich (fighteer AT cs DOT com) wrote: : This should total no more than 17 megabytes or so, assuming that your : hard disk uses an 8K cluster size. Larger disks will require slightly : more space. This does not include the documentation viewer, DPMI host, : or anything but the absolute minimum files. See chapter 4.6 of the FAQ : (v2/faq210b.zip) for a complete breakdown of package requirements. What happened to the person who was making a cut-down version of DJGPP v2.01? I don't recall the outcome of that, but after talking with someone in IRC earlier this morning I reduced a working installation to just under 5 Mb, including the info viewer, CWSDPMI, the FAQ in text format, the libc documentation, the info documentation and the GNU make utility. When zipped up, this comes to just over two megabytes. With the addition of the C++ files the uncompressed size increases to about eight and a half megabytes. The compiler is quite suitable for basic use; for instance, Allegro compiles normally. Does this sort of distribution seem like a good or a bad idea? I can see pros and cons - the pros are that no one could complain about DJGPP being large any more; the C++ system would fit on three floppies and take less than ten megabytes of disk space. As for cons, removing the less-used executables is disabling features, and removing documentation is inviting trouble. But at any time if the user finds a desirable feature is missing he/she can download the appropriate zip file and add the extra functionality in much the same way that one can add new GNU utilities to the regular setup. Also, there is the possibility that I removed files whose internal usage I was unaware of; it appears to work though. There is also the question of licensing; the source would have to be distributed by the same means. Does this mean the source for the included packages would have to be separated from the other packages' source and it would all be put in one zip file, or would it be sufficient just to provide the standard sources (e.g. djlsr*.zip, g??*s.zip, etc)? Any comments and arguements for/against this distribution would be appreciated; personally at present I think it would be a good option to provide. -- George Foot Merton College, Oxford