Sender: rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk
Message-ID: <3983E03E.15435933@phekda.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 08:58:54 +0100
From: Richard Dawe <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i586)
X-Accept-Language: de,fr
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
CC: zippo-workers AT egroups DOT com, djgpp AT delorie DOT com, kalum AT lintux DOT cx,
        lauras AT softhome DOT net
Subject: Re: [zippo-workers] Re: ANNOUNCE: DJGPP port of GNU Make 3.79.1 uploaded
References: <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1000730093142 DOT 22494A AT is>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Hello.

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> Does ``installing DJGPP with just zippo'' really requires DSM files?
> What Bad Things (tm) would happen if zippo would simply unzip the
> archive files?

I guess it doesn't really require zippo. I don't think anything bad will
happen. But zippo knows the dependencies (from the DSMs), so it knows what
order to install the packages in.

One of the benefits of DSMs (that seems to be forgotten here) is that you
can just query a package for its information - version, author, home page,
etc. If you don't use DSMs then you have to look through all the docs for
the package. This is hassle and the docs may not actually be there.

> > Yes, agreed. "Common-knowledge" DSMs are not useful or worth having.
> 
> So why do we have them now in the zippo distribution?

/Right now/ they are common-knowledge DSMs. But they are intended to be
complete DSMs - it's just that we haven't got round to completing them.

Bye, Rich =]

-- 
Richard Dawe
[ mailto:richdawe AT bigfoot DOT com | http://www.bigfoot.com/~richdawe/ ]