Sender: rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk Message-ID: <39808DD4.D9212891@phekda.freeserve.co.uk> Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 20:30:28 +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: zippo-workers AT egroups DOT com CC: Kalum Somaratna aka Grendel , Laurynas Biveinis , djgpp AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: [zippo-workers] Re: ANNOUNCE: DJGPP port of GNU Make 3.79.1 uploaded References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Hello. Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > On Thu, 27 Jul 2000, Kalum Somaratna aka Grendel wrote: > > > Actually although having a DSM in the zip file would help, if there > > isn't a DSM in a zip, I think zippo should use it's own pre written > > DSM's (it comes with several) and try to install it.. > > The default DSMs must be so general that they are useless. We might > as well ask that zippo be able to install without any DSM anywhere in > sight. All it takes is unzip the package and pray... I think there's a bit of confusion here. I think Kalum is referring to the DSMs that are distributed with zippo. On the to-do list is a way of matching the ZIP file name to its parent package, when the ZIP file does not contain a DSM. That way a user could do e.g.: zippo -i sed302b.zip sed302b.zip does not (IIRC) contain a DSM. Since zippo has a small database of available packages, it could scan this and match sed302b.zip to the parent DSM. Then it knows how to install sed. I don't think Kalum was suggesting that we have a generic default DSM. That would be pretty useless. BTW I don't that distributing a lot of DSMs with zippo is the way to go. As I mentioned before, zippo should ship with a few necessary DSMs until all packages contain DSMs. Then we can remove the DSMs distributed with zippo, since they will no longer be needed. Bye, Rich =] -- Richard Dawe [ mailto:richdawe AT bigfoot DOT com | http://www.bigfoot.com/~richdawe/ ]