Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/2001/12/26/12:59:34
Hello.
Charles Sandmann wrote:
[snip]
> It's probably a good idea to discuss an update strategy with everyone.
> For example, UPX binary .exes ? DSMs in all packages?
[snip]
I don't have an opinion on UPX. The way I understand it, it is useful for
saving disk space for decompressed archives. But does using UPX make the
archives any smaller? Archive size seems like the main concern for the
update, since the update is likely to be a fairly large download.
If we're updating a package, then I think we should include a DSM in it. I
wrote a lot of DSMs a while ago, for developing & testing zippo. They are
in the zippo distribution in share/zippo/db-avail. You can also get them
from the web from:
http://www.phekda.freeserve.co.uk/richdawe/zippo/dsm/
This is fairly up-to-date, but zippo CVS is the definitive place to get
them. Instructions for CVS access are here:
http://www.phekda.freeserve.co.uk/richdawe/zippo/#dev
zippo's CVS is hosted graciously by DJ, so it's as easy to access as DJGPP
CVS.
If it would help, I can send you a ZIP/tarball of the latest DSMs from
zippo CVS.
One other thing: if we want people to be able to use zippo to upgrade,
then we need to use a slightly different version number in the DSMs that
are currently in CVS, e.g.:
version: djdev 2.03 patchlevel 1
...
replaces: djdev < 2.03 patchlevel 1
rather than:
version: djdev 2.03
...
replaces: djdev < 2.03
and similar for the other dj* packages. Otherwise zippo will think there
is nothing to do, since the version number is the same, if you try to use
it to upgrade to the updated 2.03.
Bye, Rich =]
--
Richard Dawe [ http://www.phekda.freeserve.co.uk/richdawe/ ]
- Raw text -