Sender: rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk Message-ID: <397F27B5.83D7100E@phekda.freeserve.co.uk> Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 19:02:29 +0100 From: Richard Dawe X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i586) X-Accept-Language: de,fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Laurynas Biveinis CC: zippo-workers AT egroups DOT com, djgpp AT delorie DOT com, Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: [zippo-workers] Re: ANNOUNCE: DJGPP port of GNU Make 3.79.1 uploaded References: <397EC264 DOT 757A56DA AT softhome DOT net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Hello. Laurynas Biveinis wrote: > > Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > I was under the impression that the available distribution lags behind > > the features I use in the DSM files (in particular, I think you told > > me that built-ins are not yet supported except in your development > > sources). > > Yes, I recall that. Rich, how it is? Builtins are not supported yet, but zippo/dsmcheck can parse them. So it is valid to have them in a DSM (as specified by 0.4.2 of the spec), but zippo cannot yet do anything with them. > > As things are now, I'm not even sure the effort I invest in creating > > the DSM files is justified: I suspect that most of the people don't > > use zippo to install packages. > > Currently it is OK: zippo is still alpha, DJGPP docs (especially > readme.1st and FAQ) do not refer to it. What must be done now is > propagating DSMs through the packages. Thinking about this today, I think we should aim for the following: get zippo to handle install/uninstall well. Then we can work on the upgrade options, etc. Once install/uninstall works well, we can release for general use. I've been putting DSMs in the packages that I've producing. If nothing else, having a DSM makes it easier to test binary distributions in a DJGPP installation. Bye, Rich =] -- Richard Dawe [ mailto:richdawe AT bigfoot DOT com | http://www.bigfoot.com/~richdawe/ ]