Mail Archives: djgpp/2008/10/07/21:46:07
"DJ Delorie" <dj AT delorie DOT com> wrote in message
news:200810072041 DOT m97KfuYN017232 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com...
>
> > 9) you expect people to be familiar with "unzip" - instead of what they
use:
> > pkzip, winzip, 7-zip, infozip, *NIX zip
>
> unzip is the djgpp standard installation tool.
IIRC, I first dl'd DJGPP by ftp as .zip's from a mirror. How was I supposed
to open them? If I see a .zip, should I even consider looking for and
finding a "special" .zip decompressor to undo those "special" .zip's which I
had no idea were special? Or, would one use pkzip/pkunzip or Winzip because
they are the standard?
> unzip is the djgpp standard installation tool.
According to whom? Does Linus get to tell me which bzip decompressor I use?
Does Redhat get to tell me which rpm decompressor I use? What makes you
think you get to tell me what decompressor I use with DJGPP? Isn't that a
bit of an overbearing assumption?
> You also listed a
> bunch of COMPRESSORS, when we're talking about an UNCOMPRESSOR.
No, I didn't. I listed their package names as I know them. Some have
separate compressors and uncompressors. Some don't. If you took the common
package name as explicitly referring to the compressor only, that's your
mistaken assumption. It's commonly understood that "pkzip" refers to both
the compressor pkzip.exe and uncompressor pkunzip.exe.
> Also, note that *NIX zip and djgpp's unzip are from the same project,
> so by saying "they use *NIX zip" you're implying that they're familiar
> with unzip too.
I was pointing out that I think "unzip" isn't the likely .zip decompressor
used by people installing DJGPP that pkzip/pkunzip or Winzip is. (BTW, the
unzip in my install of DJGPP is Info-zip based...)
> Given that djgpp's installation instructions tell you to use unzip
> (specifically, the unzip32.exe that comes with djgpp) and how to use
> it,
Why would anyone do that considering that PKZIP/PKUNZIP has been the DOS
*standard* for a couple *decades*? Isn't DOS the reason you're using .zip
format instead of .tgz or .bz2 or .rpm?!?! Isn't your compiler for DOS?
Aren't your files in .zip format? Why would anyone do that with when they
likely already have pkzip, winzip, 7-zip, installed? Does it really make
any sense they'd download an use another .zip decompressor - just for DJGPP?
> I really do expect people to be familiar with unzip when
> installing djgpp.
Why? I haven't had any problems without it, but I likely installed from
Windows. Maybe LFN's would be a problem for pkunzip under DOS. No, it's
confirmed. *Both* DJGPP's unzip32.exe (v5.50) and pkunzip.exe (v2.50)
require a DOS LFN driver like DOSLFN to write LFN's under RM DOS. So, if
LFN's are the reason to use "unzip," it's possible to botch up an install
with either... I see no mention of and LFN driver within DJGPP doc's. Not
only that, but your documentation mentions the *exact* *same* *packages*
that I did. (Are you just being !$#$ing ***wipe today DJ?) In fact, your
doc's tell how to install DJGPP on just about every other system, *except*
DOS!!!!
But, then since DJGPP's for DOS, it shouldn't have long
filenames anyway, should it? If it's *truly* for DOS, it'd only have 8.3
filenames. Right? I.e., since it doesn't, DOS users are forced to install
using Windows or some DOS .zip uncompressor with DOSLFN anyway...
Also, I'm unsure why you seem overly concerned, almost hostile, about using
"unzip" instead of issues with recent posts to comp.os.msdos.djgpp. Use or
not of "unzip" really seems utterly trivial to me. I'd think looking into
users problems, e.g., either Robert's problem (which is probably trivial for
you to solve or at least locate), or mine (mystery resetting segment limit -
apparently not due to the dpmi host), would be much more important to you
than whether someone chose not to use "unzip" to install DJGPP...
RP
- Raw text -