Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 12:37:15 -0400 Message-Id: <199904261637.MAA06324@envy.delorie.com> From: DJ Delorie To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com In-reply-to: <000a01be8f45$001f01a0$79003bd4@default> (lauras@softhome.net) Subject: Re: Script language for installer - opinions needed References: <000a01be8f45$001f01a0$79003bd4 AT default> Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk > Or maybe for all zips. Why to mantain my own zip information database > if there are ready descriptions in zips? Because you may know more about a zip than just a description of it. For example, do you install gcc or egcs? You need to know that you choose *one* of those, not both. The installer's description might be more suitable for this choice than a standalone description. > There are some things which are not included in manifests - I was thinking of *one* file in manifest, not a myriad of files named by extension. > And dealing with version control would be a pain... If major version > number stays one-digit, it would be easier. And now consider - > bnu281b.zip is 2.81 and after many years bnu111b.zip could be 11.1 > and 1.11. But I look to far in the future :). Now we can deal with one-digit > major version number. The *.ver file has the dotted version number. Or, should. > Are there any tgz in DJGPP distribution? Can't recall. No, but they compress much better than zips. > If we make djgpp-specific installer with all that functionality management > and some other future plans (e.g. ability to upgrade), we get almost > generic installer. Only registry update code is specific. A djgpp installer that can to generic installs is OK. A generic installer that can install djgpp is harder. What I meant is I don't mind if the installer has special code in it to make installing djgpp easier to describe.