Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 10:39:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Pierre Phaneuf Reply-To: pierre AT tycho DOT com To: OpenDOS Mailing List Subject: Re: DOS utilities (was Re: A few FS notions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Precedence: bulk On Wed, 7 May 1997 yeep AT xs4all DOT nl wrote: > > Yes, sounds good, but it has to be EASIER than RPM's, and the > > "RPM" file must come ready to run as either a self extracting EXE > > or a ZIP file IMHO, *NOT* as an RPM file. > > How about a zip file renamed to rpm? :-) Not RPM, because they wouldn't be compatible with the *real* RPM system... But I was thinking about some archive file renamed to some other extension... > > UTILITY package (16-bit OpenDOS version) > > OPENDOS\DELTREE > > OPENDOS\BACKUP > > OPENDOS\STACKER > > OPENDOS\RESTORE > > I assume with this package you mean all the stuff usually supplied with a > DOS? > Stuff like xcopy and....erm..is there more? > Well, you know what I mean. I guess so, but we'll see to the content later... > So then we'd have two packages to get a full (as we are now used to for a > DOS) OS. Not necessarily. You see, I could do a "classic DOS utilities" package and a "bash, fileutils and friends Unix-like utilities" package. You get to choose FREELY! (boy, do I love this word!) ;-) > How about a package with replacements for the other two. > 4DOS, BASH, CSH, etc in stead of COMMAND.COM. > And some other stuff that can be replaced. Exactly! That's why COMMAND.COM should be put in a separate package! That would make a lot of small packages to download, but would give you the choice! > Yes, definitly! > As long as the log files are in ASCII, so you can update them when you > relocate or manually delete a package. > (Ever tried pulling that of when you manually deleted something under > Win95, in stead of with the uninstall? Registry...here I come :-) ) Not sure about that... Would make heck of a slow database, and why would you like to relocate? If all packages are put in sensible places... I know DOS doesn't have a filesystem standard (in term of directory organization, there a place for each things) like Unix, but a minimal standard would be fine... I like the "/ProgramFiles/Company/Product" hiearchy of Win95 for external programs... Or maybe it is time to make a filesystem standard? It needs not to be as complex and far-fetched as Unix, but a good simple one would be nice... Pierre Phaneuf