Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 05:50:54 +0600 (LKT) From: Kalum Somaratna aka Grendel X-Sender: kalum AT roadrunner DOT grendel DOT net To: Richard Dawe cc: zippo-workers AT egroups DOT com, 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 In-Reply-To: <39808DD4.D9212891@phekda.freeserve.co.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk On Thu, 27 Jul 2000, Richard Dawe spoke the following immortal words, > 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 Yes, this was what I was referring to.. > > 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. Agreed, but as you said zippo should ship with a few necessary DSM's until most of the packages contain DSM's... Grendel Hi, I'm a signature virus. plz set me as your signature and help me spread :)