> Thank you for sharing your insight. It clearly looks like I will have to
> figure out an alternative approach to my batch files.
> Context: Such batch files are created by FDNPKG, my FreeDOS package
> manager, as "links" to some commonly used applications like zip, upx,
> nasm, etc, to avoid having to put them all in a single directory within
> the %PATH% (and to avoid exploding the environment with a huge %PATH%
> containing dozens of directories). FDNPKG creates "link" files that are
> all stored in a dedicated directory on the disk, where each link file
> calls its parent application directly in the directory where said parent
> application is installed, passing the same arguments through %1 %2 %3...
unfortunately DOS does not work this way.
this requires the calling program (MAKE, VC, or similar) do be smart
and differentiate between .EXE/.COM files which can be executed
directly using spawnXY("GETARGS.EXE"), and .BAT files that require an
additional COMMAND.COM instance, eating precious memory.
not good.
> This worked beautifully for me for years, until recently when I tried to
> compile things passing parameters like -DXX=YY to nasm.
xyZIP programs also have extension lists where extensions are
separated by ','
> Anyway, I will most probably have to work on some kind of small *.COM
> loader that would replace what I do with batches now... To be continued
> somewhere in the future.
what exactly is the advantage of placing NASM.EXE files in
c:\utils\nasm\nasm.exe
with a link file in C:\BIN, instead of copying nasm.exe in the BIN
directory as has been praxis for 30 years?
Tom
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
