Hi Jim,

> Interestingly, at one point on FDPM we had considered adding
> dependencies and post-install tasks a-la the RPM spec (%dependencies%
> and %pre% and %post% sections after the "End" in the LSM.) But we
> never followed up on it while I worked on FDPM.

The current implementation (by Blair) is that FDPKG looks for
certain filenames in the zipped package. Those fixed-name files
can describe: Things to do for updates (as a batch file, can for
example delete the old EXE if the new version uses a COM), things
for postinstall (batch), things for uninstall (batch afair) and
dependencies (machine readable text file).

> > \DISKCOPY.001   =>  %12\DISKCOPY.EXE
> > (and in turn, %12 could be standarised to C:\FREEDOS\BIN by the
> > packager program).

I think that would be overdoing things. We should be happy if
we get more downloads available in the fine existing fdpkg zip
format for now :-).

> 2. move the LSM file out of the zip file archive, and into the zip
> file comment header. This makes it easier for programs built using zip
> file tools to easily read the LSM header without having to unzip part
> of the archive just to read a single APPINFO/______.LSM file.

Is the comment header really easier to unzip than a file? I had
the impression that zip libraries like for example the one used
in htmlhelp focus on unzipping files to files or buffers anyway.

I agree to 1. and 3. - we should stick to the existing and
proven directory structure and LSM file format :-). Yet it
would be okay to extend LSM, for example to have 2 fields
for URLs, one for a general project page and one for the
exact file download of the fdpkg (!) zip of this version.

Eric :-)

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