Hello, 2007/12/2, Jim Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > There is an important difference. What I put in the general archive on > ibiblio is a mirror of other people's work. For most programs, they > already have another primary location, and (license permitting) I'm > just putting it on ibiblio so that it has at least a 2nd place to live > (for example, in case the original site goes down or otherwise becomes > unavailable.) Users should still be able to download the original > program in its original archive from ibiblio, AND IT SHOULD BE > IDENTICAL TO WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY RELEASED BY THE AUTHOR/MAINTAINER.
But it is not even true for the packages in the distributions, compared to the ones created by us (for which I'm grateful, they are better!). > Else, it would confuse which was the version that the author had > actually released. That's why when I reply to announcements about new > program versions on this list, I consistently say I "mirrored your > release on ibiblio", and why I no longer convert rar files to zip > files. > > It would also mean the general archive on ibiblio was no longer a > mirror site - and it needs to remain a mirror site. May I then suggest the use of the mapping file that I mentioned in the previous mail? In fact, the example you mentioned, 4DOS, will probably not have an LSM launched. Perhaps it could be a good idea that besides any ZIP (untouched) there would be a file with the same name, but some extension, like LSM or another, that would contain all those extra info needed for the packager: the version or date to compare, the mapping of files onto the pkg structure, and other useful info (such as post-install script that I mentioned too). Actually, this info file could be the XML that Jim suggested, a quite extensible idea (hopefully XMLs are easy to read in C?). Thus, a ZIP that does NOT have such file could be extracted asking the user for a directory, whereas if such info file exists, it is clear what is to be done. True that it's some quite extra work to be done (specially for source packages). > Mateusz & I just had a brief off-list discussion where I suggested we > may want to change how FDPKG manages packages. One thing we may want > to do is have all pkg files have a PKG or FDP ("FreeDOS Package") > extension, rather than keep the zip extension, even though the pkg > file is just a zip file with a particular directory structure. > Changing the extension would be a good way to implicitly declare that > the pkg file is not the original release zip file (4dos759.zip & > 4dos759.fdp, for example.) Oops, I hadn't read this when I wrote my previous mail. Needless to say, I like the idea ;-) > It might be a good/interesting idea, though, to add an option to > FDUPDATE to tell it to read/unzip the packages in-place (i.e. assume a > local repo) rather than wget them to a local cache. Obviously, that > works well when the repo is local, but not so well when the repo is on > a web server somewhere. You're talking (I guess?) as some type of "repository type", that could be either internet or local. Perhaps the "address" could give the clue: http://www.freedos.org/.... file://d:\updates Aitor ------------------------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 _______________________________________________ Freedos-user mailing list Freedosemail@example.com https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user