I'm probably not the best person to answer these questions, but since
nobody else responded ....
On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 4:40 PM, Vidók Tibor <tibor.vi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've just installed FreeDOS to learn a DOS kernel architecture and the
> project activities.
> Actually what I cannot see clearly is the followings
> I have the SVN source tree, which is stopping at kernel 2041 and not changed
> any more.
FreeDOS is an extremely small group of people, probably no more than
ten people with SVN commit privileges. It's very low maintenance. At
this point, people just have more important things to do (apparently),
and it's considered "good enough" to not need major changes.
> But the mail below is about kernel 2042 which seems to be an
> unofficial build and fixes a very old CP/M incompatibility bug in its own
> unofficial git repository. Is there any plan to include such fixes in
> official FreeDOS as well? Or is this 2042 also an official release?
No, AFAIK, Jeremy's unofficial Git repo is just for his local
experiments. I don't know what it would take to make a formal kernel
release for 2042. I don't know what testing or cleanups would be
necessary. Unfortunately, as you've seen, most other kernel developers
haven't had much time to work on it lately.
> Also SVN contains "install" for package handling from disksets, while the
> 1.1 installer contains fdupdate (which is obsolate) and fdpkg. The de facto
> official program is fdnpkg now, but, the official 1.1 distribution cannot
> be upgraded with it, since the .lst filenames of installed packages are in a
> pkgx.lst format and incompatible. As a result 1.1 install CD is not
> recommended to use, thus there is no valid official distribution exists.
1.1 is still available for download as official. Forks and separate
distributions are always welcome. But most people aren't interested in
doing all that work.
As nice as it is to have a pre-made distro, it's a lot of work.
Certainly FDNPKG is nice, but if plain vanilla FD 1.1 isn't good
enough for you, you'll just have to make do with manual upgrades (or
use Mateusz's unofficial .iso).
That brings up another point: packages / .ZIPs. If you want to help
make some additional or newer packages, then contact Mateusz and/or
Jim Hall directly.
But once again, motivation is low, and volunteers are few. FreeDOS
doesn't have the luxury of thousands of people helping, sadly. It's
actually quite hard to keep track of all the tiny pieces.
> So how a user can locate or identify what is the official (conforming to
> JHall) freedos distribution?
> Is there any plan to release a FreeDOS-1.1.1 or FreeDOS-1.2 with the updated
> kernel and fixed package installer? Maybe with fdnpkg?
Not unless somebody steps up to do the work. I'm not comfortable with
creating an .iso and fully testing it, so it probably won't be me.
Quite honestly, some things change too fast to constantly update.
I know it's not ideal, but I still think manually updating is your
best bet. (I also think emulators are useful, but that too requires
lots of testing.) Believe it or not, most people who download DOS
should already know what they're doing.
> Thank you for your clarification in advance,
Sorry if that's not what you want to hear.
Download BIRT iHub F-Type - The Free Enterprise-Grade BIRT Server
from Actuate! Instantly Supercharge Your Business Reports and Dashboards
with Interactivity, Sharing, Native Excel Exports, App Integration & more
Get technology previously reserved for billion-dollar corporations, FREE
Freedos-user mailing list