On 12/2/07, Aitor Santamaría <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
> 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!).

Just to be clear: what I am trying to say is that files put in
should be assumed to be pkgs, not the originally zip file release of
the program. And we should consider changing the names of these pkgs
so they have a FDP or PKG extension.

But files that are in any other directory on ibiblio (like say
should assumed to be a mirror of the author's original zip file release.

I don't want to re-zip or re-package any files that are in the
"mirror" areas. I consider that to be inappropriate, as it confuses
users to what was the actual original released file. But I think it's
presumed to be ok to re-package programs for inclusion in a
distribution (to be sure they have the correct dir structure, etc) so
that is why I mak

> 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?).

If the zip file contains an LSM file, I usually unzip it next to the
original zip file ... just for this reason, so users would know what
was contained in the file, and to make things easier on the person
creating a pkg.

> > 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

Nice solution, I like that.


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.
Freedos-user mailing list

Reply via email to