Mail Archives: djgpp/1998/10/27/18:45:11
On Tue, 27 Oct 1998 15:42:19 -0800, Nate Eldredge wrote:
>Mike Ruskai wrote:
>>
>> On 27 Oct 1998 09:41:42 GMT, Boon van der RJ wrote:
>>
>> >Mike Ruskai <thanny AT spambegone DOT home DOT com> wrote:
>> >> The trick for you is to edit the djgpp.env file and change 'n' to 'y' for
>> >> long filenames, since the Win95 kludge allows for DOS programs to see long
>> >> names.
>> >
>> >Not the best advice. The canonical way to do it is to set LFN=y in
>> >your environment (autoexec.bat). Editing DJGPP.ENV is often awkward,
>> >and could get you in big problems. (although the +LFN=n is quite
>> >straightforward).
>>
>> It's right at the top of the file. Moreover, the instructions given on the
>> web page for downloading DJGPP explicitly say to edit that file for precisely
>> that purpose.
>
>Then, IMHO, it should be changed. DJ?
>
>> On top of that, I find the notion of a text file edit being awkward rather
>> silly. Especially when we're talking about a software package which entails
>> people editing text files before running the program.
>
>On the other hand, there have been several cases of bizarre screwage
>that have been traced to mis-editing of DJGPP.ENV. It wasn't designed
>to be edited by users, and not a lot of trouble is taken to make it
>user-friendly. There was one long-standing bug brought on by blank
>lines at the end of the file-- not a problem if the user stuck with the
>distributed version, but edit it, and watch out!
>
>I personally agree that editing a text file is a trivial thing to get
>right, but there are total newbies out there. Someone is sure to edit
>it with Microsloth Word, and then complain that DJGPP doesn't work. And
>if the user uses something like RHIDE, they don't even need to know how
>to write/edit a text file.
I submit that someone so ignorant is best prevented from inflicting upon the
world any prorams which by luck alone are compiled.
>> >> A pretty stupid way to pack up the archive, if you ask me. It should be
>> >> short names, period, with scripts to rename files and patch sources to use
>> >> long names.
>> >
>> >I don't think it should be like that. If you just use DOS an
>> >LFN-packed archive is OK. If you just use WIN95 an LFN-archive is even
>> >better. If you use both DOS and Win95 you should follow the FAQ. If
>> >you use OS2 you just have to know to unpack with PKUNZIP. IMHO it's
>> >always best to stick to the original as close as possible (what about
>> >a package that #includes streambuf.h directly, on a win95 system?)
>>
>> You seem to be missing the point. The script would rename the files and
>> correct the filenames in all #include's from the header files.
>
>That is *not* a good solution. Unless you're advocating total removal
>of LFN support (IMHO a worse thing), any name with extra characters
>would cease to work, even though it would work fine on an 8+3 platform.
Just what name would that be? A single example will suffice.
>So, as the previous poster pointed out, #include <streambuf.h> in a user
>program would die horribly under Windows. People would have to use your
>script to change it to #include <streambu.h>, and then their source
>wouldn't work when they try to compile it on a Unix box.
No, you're still missing the point entirely.
>> Relying on the behavior of a dearchiver program is the Wrong Thing to do.
>
>I agree that it's unfortunate, but I cannot see any better way.
Even though I've pointed it out.
--
- Mike
Remove 'spambegone' to send e-mail.
- Raw text -