Date:	Sun, 30 Jul 2000 09:32:12 +0300 (IDT)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	Richard Dawe <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
cc:	zippo-workers AT egroups DOT com, djgpp AT delorie DOT com, kalum AT lintux DOT cx,
	lauras AT softhome DOT net
Subject:	Re: [zippo-workers] Re: ANNOUNCE: DJGPP port of GNU Make 3.79.1 uploaded
In-Reply-To:	<3982CA41.937ACB86@phekda.freeserve.co.uk>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1000730093142.22494A@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Sat, 29 Jul 2000, Richard Dawe wrote:

> I understand your concern
> about the DSMs distributed with zippo being too basic. The reason they're
> basic right now is that it takes time and effort to write them and so far
> only Laurynas has put effort into making them realistic. Before zippo
> "ships" I intend that they will be made more realistic. Currently their
> purpose is to allow people to install DJGPP with just zippo (which works
> quite well).

Does ``installing DJGPP with just zippo'' really requires DSM files?
What Bad Things (tm) would happen if zippo would simply unzip the
archive files?

Perhaps we should take one DSM out of those supplied with zippo and
analyze it, to see what non-trivial information does it include.

If the DSMs supplied with zippo don't convey any non-trivial
information, perhaps zippo itself should know all the trivia.  That
would prevent the need for writing those ``basic'' DSMs.

> > In other words, I was arguing that the default DSMs must be simple
> > enough to not convey anything but the ``common-knowledge'' type of
> > info, which is hardly specific to the packages.  Such a common
> > knowledge might as well be simply built into zippo to begin with.
> 
> Yes, agreed. "Common-knowledge" DSMs are not useful or worth having.

So why do we have them now in the zippo distribution?

- Raw text -