From: "John M. Aldrich" Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: Why not to use 'tar' before packing DJGPP? Date: Fri, 08 Nov 1996 21:16:05 -0800 Organization: Three pounds of chaos and a pinch of salt Lines: 67 Message-ID: <32841395.48F6@cs.com> References: <32823D97 DOT 44DD AT sabat DOT tu DOT kielce DOT pl> <3282A82E DOT 7EE7 AT cs DOT com> <55vapk$s4l AT news DOT ox DOT ac DOT uk> Reply-To: fighteer AT cs DOT com NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp219.cs.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: George Foot To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp George Foot wrote: > > I have to agree; I was a lowly Dos user, and had to untar some files > (under Unix) for a BBC Emulator (no, really...) - I didn't know where to > start. However, what about making the DJGPP-compiled untar utility > available along with a few quick instructions in a separate .zip? I can't > remember off the top of my head, but I think I downloaded a few text > files back in the dark ages before I used DJGPP, to discover which zips > to download. All it would need would be a line in there saying, "But > first, get this...". You have no idea how many users just start grabbing files with no idea of what they need to get, without even bothering to read the readme file. Then they complain here and we have to point them to what was right in front of them the whole time. :) But IMHO the biggest argument against using tar is just what you said: most pure DOS users (who comprise the vast majority of DJGPP users) have never heard of tar, and wouldn't know what to do with an untar program if it read its own instructions out loud on their PC speakers. OTOH, pkzip/unzip is well known enough for most people to figure it out. It's not that I wouldn't like to see the archives in tarred format; I just don't think it would "sell." > Not that I really understand tar anyway, but those compression ratios > look good... maybe you could just tar the source files? People who are > interested in the source code of the compiler are more likely to know > what they're doing with tar anyway. That's not such a bad idea. After all, if they get the source, then they probably already have at least djdev, which contains djtar. :) Tar is really neat, but the reason it gets good ratios is not because it does any compression itself, but because it's much more efficient to compress a single tar file than lots of untarred ones. I imagine you would get similar (but not identical) results if you took one of the distribution .zip files and re-zipped it. I have known this to reduce a zipfile's size by several percent. > If the proposition is to tar the source, then zip it up, why not tar it, > then zip it along with untar.exe (or whatever) and instructions? djtar comes with djdev20*.zip, so if they get that they get a suitable utility. > What happened to the installer, anyway? I remember seeing here long ago a > thread on this topic... to me, it seems a good idea. DJGPP seems to have > moved from being a Unix-style compiler with warnings in the readmes > saying 'don't even consider learning to program on this' to a friendly > compiler anyone can use. An installation utility would improve this > appearance still further. You aren't mistaken; there was a thread and it led to some very good thinking on the part of a number of people. The installer is currently in development by Mark Habersack, and it will work concurrently with an installation diagnostic utility being developed by yours truly. Both programs are in alpha right now, but I expect that we will be able to release code for public evaluation fairly soon. l8r -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- | John M. Aldrich, aka Fighteer I | fighteer AT cs DOT com | | * Proud user of DJGPP! * | http://www.cs.com/fighteer | | ObJoke: If Bill Gates were a robber, not only would he | | shoot you, but he'd send you a bill for the bullets. | ---------------------------------------------------------------------