Mail Archives: djgpp/1995/01/06/16:39:54
> From turnbull AT shako DOT sk DOT tsukuba DOT ac DOT jp Fri Jan 6 15:02 EST 1995
> Date: Sat, 7 Jan 1995 05:03:44 +0900
> From: Stephen Turnbull <turnbull AT shako DOT sk DOT tsukuba DOT ac DOT jp>
> To: ld AT netrix DOT com
> Cc: DJGPP AT sun DOT soe DOT clarkson DOT edu
> Subject: a funny in one of the djgpp zip files
>
> Unfortunately, the current version (fsdb104) suffers from
> the same packaging defects (sorry, Long Doan; we all appreciate
> your efforts in improving the program, but this packaging is quite
> far from that of the rest of the system, it's not very hard to fix
> it, and flaming someone for not reading the manual included only
> in the zipfile until after unzipping the manual into an unintended
> directory is an unacceptable Catch-22, don't you think?
> Especially considering that the read.me seems to suggest that
> reading the manual is necessary only for people who are rebuilding
> the debugger :-)
What else can I do if the whole debugger is in one package? I'll try to zip
it (version 1.05) with directory information, but it still depends on whether
people uses the -d switch or not.
> By the way, the read.me suggests unzipping everything into
> %DJGPP%\go32\fs rather than into ...\ed, as you said in your
> message. Is this a typo in the reply to Anthony, or an
> inconsistency in the documentation?
It's not a typo, because he was refering to fsdb091a, which should
be installed under .../go32/ed
> I hope this packaging will be improved in the next release,
> when the references to the noa (I suppose that stands for "Not On
> Any [drive]" :-) directory are to be removed from the Makefile.
It's for Network Opened Achitecture.
> (3) I'm just curious, but what zip was used to make the distribution
> file fsdb104.zip? Linux InfoZip unzip v. 5.0p1 complains that
> "fsdb104.zip may be an executable" (then proceeds unzip everything
> correctly). I haven't tried it with other unzips, so I don't know
> whether this is unique to the Linux system.
It's zipped with pkzip 2.04g
> (4) I note that the read.me (could this be renamed to "readme", as
> that's what other DJGPP readmes are named? Excessively cautious
> people like myself might then be able to do a "unzip -p fsdb104
> readme.* | less" without first doing a "unzip -v fsdb104 | less" to
> find out what the name of the readme file is, not that we *should
> have to* do either....) file specifies that a GO32 v1.11.maint5.n
> needs to be used. Is GO32 v.1.12[.maint[1-3]] compatible with
> fsdb104? Or does the hacked version still need to be used? What
> about future releases of GO32 (I know, V2 will be here RSN and the
> won't be a GO32, but...) and fsdb? I ask primarily because Eli
> Zaretskii's FAQ doesn't specify GO32 v1.11.maint5.n, and it would
> be nice if the FAQ got this right.
As far as I know, go32 version 1.12maint3 should run the debugger correctly.
> (5) While we're on the subject of the future of DJGPP and fsdb, are
> there concrete plans to convert fsdb for use with V2? Again, Eli
> gives a short blurb on V2, and it would be nice (certainly not
> essential, but nice) to have accurate information on that.
V2 is not out yet, so I can't say whether or not the debugger will support
it. The main catch is DPMI, because some of the features of the debugger
(mostly the performance analyzer) are very hard to cope with DPMI.
- Raw text -