Message-ID:	<373C8257.73EE06B3@softhome.net>
Date:	Fri, 14 May 1999 22:06:47 +0200
From:	Laurynas Biveinis <lauras AT softhome DOT net>
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 4.51 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Accept-Language:	en
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: DJGPP installer [Was: Script language for installer]
References:	<000601be8f2e$860fc2c0$86033bd4 AT default> <3739D966 DOT ADE9216A AT bigfoot DOT com> <373C384D DOT 14732824 AT softhome DOT net> <373C6C55 DOT B8690F94 AT bigfoot DOT com>
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

Richard Dawe wrote:
> or something similar. I think it should be very flexible. How about this
> (in DJ's suggested format):
> 
> group: HugelyComplicatedPackage
> zip: huge11b1.zip
> zip: huge11b2.zip
> zip: huge11b3.zip
> ...etc...

I agree.

> I'm a little pushed for time right now too. I thought I'd see what
> everybody thought and work out the specification for the rest of the
> program, before I actually start writing - unlike usual ;)

I will start keeping track about proposals concerning script file format
and writing some code. Currently I accept everything that was said there
(just maybe rename "depends-on" to "optional"?)

Now about implementation - should we use static arrays for list of zips,
groups, required zips etc. or linked lists? My vote is for lists,
because
they are more flexible, do not have static limits, and their overhead
would
be very small compared with installer's unzipping work.

> The front-end - back-end divide seems good, if you are happy with this
> idea.

So this is a deal. (Here should be a handshake ;-) ) Now let's share the
work.

Laurynas Biveinis

- Raw text -