Mail Archives: djgpp/2008/10/07/22:27:39
> > 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?
Does anyone read the README any more? If you started with the topmost
README and followed the readme's as indicated, you'd see that djgpp
includes an UNZIPPED copy of unzip32.exe just for this purpose.
> 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?
I'd like to think that people would read the installation
instructions. You can use the others, but you can't use their
defaults - you have to override them correctly to get a usable
installation.
> > unzip is the djgpp standard installation tool.
>
> According to whom?
Me, the creator of DJGPP.
> What makes you think you get to tell me what decompressor I use with
> DJGPP? Isn't that a bit of an overbearing assumption?
Well, if you want to use one of the other ones and end up with a
non-functional installation, go ahead. There are many good reasons to
use a djgpp-aware unzip program, but if you want to try to figure out
the install without reading and following the instructions we spent
years ironing out, go ahead.
> > 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*?
pkzip isn't the only zip/unzip package that's that old.
> Isn't DOS the reason you're using .zip format instead of .tgz or
> .bz2 or .rpm?!?!
Er, no.
> Isn't your compiler for DOS?
Yes.
> Aren't your files in .zip format?
Since you know so much about zip files, why don't you tell me why it's
important to NOT use pkunzip or WinZip. Go ahead, I'll wait. Use the
mail archives if you get stuck. Or read the installation
instructions.
> Why would anyone do that with when they likely already have pkzip,
> winzip, 7-zip, installed?
Because it "just works", which is more than I can say for the other
unzip programs, at least, if you're not aware of the non-obvious way
the other programs need to be invoked to get them to work right.
> Does it really make any sense they'd download an use another .zip
> decompressor - just for DJGPP?
If they want their installation to just work, yes.
> > I really do expect people to be familiar with unzip when
> > installing djgpp.
>
> Why?
Because the documentation tells them how to use it. And because if
you're about to install something as complex as djgpp, and write
software with it, you should have a clue or two about such things.
We've often said that if you can't get djgpp working, you probably are
going to have a hard time with programming too.
> *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.
Close, but not quite right.
> I see no mention of and LFN driver within DJGPP doc's.
And you won't. The whole point of using unzip32 is that is uses the
SAME lfn logic as every djgpp program you'll be installing, so it
always does the right thing as far as lfn vs sfn vs numeric tails as
the other djgpp programs will be expecting. pkzip doesn't.
> (Are you just being !$#$ing ***wipe today DJ?)
That was totally uncalled for. I've been doing this for nearly twenty
years, I don't need your help figuring out how to install it.
> In fact, your doc's tell how to install DJGPP on just about every
> other system, *except* DOS!!!!
Could you be more specific? The web site points everyone at the zip
picker, which includes DOS as the first option. The READMEs assume
DOS, and call out exceptions for everything else.
> But, then since DJGPP's for DOS, it shouldn't have long filenames
> anyway, should it?
We have LFN drivers for plain DOS also, but DOS 7 (aka "windows") has
LFN built-in.
The DOS API certainly does have support for long file names, else
djgpp wouldn't be able to use them at all.
> If it's *truly* for DOS,
It's for the DOS API, not just the old MS-DOS 2..6.
> it'd only have 8.3 filenames.
Close - it should run on 8.3 filesystems, that doesn't mean that the
files are in the zip file as 8.3. The idea is to still be found
properly when truncated to 8.3. I check for that on every *b.zip
upload. Most have longer names that are 8.3-safe, so that if you
install them on an LFN system you get the names you expect.
> Right?
Sorry, wrong.
> 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.
Because correcting misinformation about installation instructions is
far easier, and far more important, than obscure programming problems.
Besides, I'm not the current authority on those problems.
> Use or not of "unzip" really seems utterly trivial to me.
Nearly twenty years of helping people install DJGPP says otherwise.
pkunzip gets LFN vs SFN wrong. WinZip tends to put each package in
its own subdirectory. Either results in an unusable installation.
- Raw text -