> On Mar 28, 2022, at 10:20 AM, Paul Dufresne via Freedos-devel > <freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote: > > ---- Activé lun., 28 mars 2022 08:24:15 -0400 Jerome Shidel > <jer...@shidel.net> écrit ---- >> But with how easy package installation is after the initial install using >> FDIMPLES, I wonder >> why bother with FULL at all? Why not just install BASE? The user could >> install additional packages later > For people installing on real hardware, DOS may not provide network drivers > for their hardware. > For them installing almost all make much sense.
Those packages could still be provided on the CD or other Release Media. I just don’t know if we need to install the “FULL” set. Maybe just install BASE and the user can pick and chose stuff off the release media (and someday the online repos) after they install. I think it would also help them know what is actual installed on their system. > > I was about writing some of my ideas about goint toward constant releases. > > Current ibiblio repositories goes like: > 1.1 > 1.2 > 1.3 > latest At present, packages for 1.2 and 1.3 are more or less compatible. On the server, both paths are just symlinks to latest. The 1.1 branch receives no updates. > > I am thinking going toward: > 1.1 > 1.2 > 1.3 > 1.3Updates > raw > next > > where 1.3 updates would contains new packages for 1.3, even if fdimples would > probably know how to > handle it... still usefull to me to have a place with just changed packages > since 1.3 > > raw would be not yet packaged files... for developers not making specifcally > freedos packages > > next would be the next version with the new ideas, maybe with a slightly > differrent package format. > I am thinking about having an extension of .dpk or .dpg for (Free)D(os) > packages. To make it explicit > it is a file ready to be served to fdimples, rather than some .zip file. The branches that receive updates (1.2, 1.3, latest) contain the latest version of the packages that we have created. I don’t see a reason to add a new branch. If we decided to change package file extensions (and possibly format), 1.2 and 1.3 would be detached from Latest. And most likely would receive few if any updates. Jim already provides the ‘raw’ files under a couple directories at http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/ <http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/> . They are raw mirrors and most are not in package format. While you can just “unzip” and use most of the packages, I don’t recommend it. For starters, you won’t be able to remove it using a package manager like FDIMPLES. You can easily cause issues if you try to use a package manager to update or install later. Furthermore, some packages are configured for very specific paths and won’t work properly if unzipped to the wrong location. There are also other issues that can crop up. As always, I highly recommend installing the packages with a package manager. As for changing the extension, IDK. It would prevent users from just unzipping things which is good and bad. As for the extension, .dpk is already in use and would probably cause confusion. Not sure about .dpg. But if we were to change it, I think I’m partial to .fdp (F)ree(D)OS (P)ackage. :-) Jerome
_______________________________________________ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
