X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mailnull set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f Sender: rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk Message-ID: <3C2A0F8F.CFA75758@phekda.freeserve.co.uk> Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 17:57:35 +0000 From: Richard Dawe X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.19 i586) X-Accept-Language: de,fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: V2.03 refresh note References: <10112261504 DOT AA14845 AT clio DOT rice DOT edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Hello. Charles Sandmann wrote: [snip] > It's probably a good idea to discuss an update strategy with everyone. > For example, UPX binary .exes ? DSMs in all packages? [snip] I don't have an opinion on UPX. The way I understand it, it is useful for saving disk space for decompressed archives. But does using UPX make the archives any smaller? Archive size seems like the main concern for the update, since the update is likely to be a fairly large download. If we're updating a package, then I think we should include a DSM in it. I wrote a lot of DSMs a while ago, for developing & testing zippo. They are in the zippo distribution in share/zippo/db-avail. You can also get them from the web from: http://www.phekda.freeserve.co.uk/richdawe/zippo/dsm/ This is fairly up-to-date, but zippo CVS is the definitive place to get them. Instructions for CVS access are here: http://www.phekda.freeserve.co.uk/richdawe/zippo/#dev zippo's CVS is hosted graciously by DJ, so it's as easy to access as DJGPP CVS. If it would help, I can send you a ZIP/tarball of the latest DSMs from zippo CVS. One other thing: if we want people to be able to use zippo to upgrade, then we need to use a slightly different version number in the DSMs that are currently in CVS, e.g.: version: djdev 2.03 patchlevel 1 ... replaces: djdev < 2.03 patchlevel 1 rather than: version: djdev 2.03 ... replaces: djdev < 2.03 and similar for the other dj* packages. Otherwise zippo will think there is nothing to do, since the version number is the same, if you try to use it to upgrade to the updated 2.03. Bye, Rich =] -- Richard Dawe [ http://www.phekda.freeserve.co.uk/richdawe/ ]