On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 6:48 AM, Christian Masloch <c...@bttr-software.de> wrote:
>> - Any DOS replacement stuff (move, tree, format...) goes to \BIN\
>> - Any system enhacement (grep, ls, pcisleep, cwsdpmi, fdupdate...) goes
>> to \SBIN\
> Why should I want two directories with binaries? Plus, some of the
> binaries might be appropriate for both \BIN and \SBIN (even FORMAT!).

I think Mateusz is suggesting separating the programs from the "base"
list (in ...\BIN) from those that are in "devel" or "util" (in
...\SBIN). In this case, FORMAT would show up in ...\BIN.

This level of separation isn't a good idea, IMO. It will make package
creation much harder, because the person making the package will need
to have some knowledge of where this program would need to be
installed. That's probably easy if it's only Mateusz making the
packages - but will be much more difficult to maintain this if the
developers themselves put their zip file in FD package format.

Imagine all the (new?) packages that should really be in "util" that
might be put in ...\BIN format because the developer/contributor wants
them to be in "base" (even though the program might not replicate any
original functionality of MSDOS.) The zip file would look like it's in
pkg format, but really someone would need to go into the file and put
it into the ...\SBIN layout.

It's better to keep with the original spec on this, use the ...\BIN
for all binaries.


Freedos-user mailing list

Reply via email to