Re: [Freedos-devel] watcom, was Re: Booting and FDAPM
Hi Jerome, > At present, the RBE is not setup to include 2 branches from the same GitLab > project. > > It would require a separate GitLab project (with a different name, like > watcomv2). I think having two different watcom C packages could cause user > confusion on which one to install. It would also take up a lot of space on > the OS install media. I think it would probably be better to wait for v2 to > produce a stable release and then upgrade our 1.9 package to v2. If I may make a wish I would prefer to stay at 1.9 :-) There is also a sign of life on the original Open Watcom site http://openwatcom.org, stating that they will continue working on the 1.9 branch. But considering their history… See you in a few hours Bernd ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
Re: [Freedos-devel] watcom, was Re: Booting and FDAPM
+1 - Open Watcom 1.9 is stable and safe. I think those factors make it the default for inclusion in a distribution. Something actively under development and in between releases sounds like a bad idea. On Sat, Mar 18, 2023 at 5:42 AM wrote: > Hi Bernd, > > > On Mar 17, 2023, at 2:12 PM, Bernd Boeckmann via Freedos-devel < > freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote: > > > > IDLEHALT=1 works for my machines and reduces the CPU load under > VirtualBox to nearly zero at the command prompt. > > > >> Am 17.03.2023 um 15:25 schrieb jer...@shidel.net: > >> > >> On a side note… Why run the watcom installer at all? Installing the > FreeDOS WATCOMC 1.9 package through FDIMPLES, even with FDAPM and DOSLFN > loaded takes about 1 minute inside VirtualBox. We could most likely just > provide a WATCOM2C package and avoid the whole issue completely. > > > > Yes, was only for testing purposes :-) > > > > If v2 is packaged would it be possible to continue shipping the 1.9 > branch in parallel? My impression is that the v2 fork focusses on adding > new stuff: Linux support, 64-bit and so forth… And from time to time they > seem to break older stuff. I at least under Win9x encountered some > regressions. > > > > Greetings, Bernd > > > > At present, the RBE is not setup to include 2 branches from the same > GitLab project. > > It would require a separate GitLab project (with a different name, like > watcomv2). I think having two different watcom C packages could cause user > confusion on which one to install. It would also take up a lot of space on > the OS install media. I think it would probably be better to wait for v2 to > produce a stable release and then upgrade our 1.9 package to v2. > > But, I don’t use watcom. So, maybe I’m wrong. Maybe having both would be > better. Or, possibly include 1.9 with the release and have v2 available on > the download repo. > > :-) > > Jerome > > > > > ___ > Freedos-devel mailing list > Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel > ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
[Freedos-devel] watcom, was Re: Booting and FDAPM
Hi Bernd, > On Mar 17, 2023, at 2:12 PM, Bernd Boeckmann via Freedos-devel > wrote: > > IDLEHALT=1 works for my machines and reduces the CPU load under VirtualBox to > nearly zero at the command prompt. > >> Am 17.03.2023 um 15:25 schrieb jer...@shidel.net: >> >> On a side note… Why run the watcom installer at all? Installing the FreeDOS >> WATCOMC 1.9 package through FDIMPLES, even with FDAPM and DOSLFN loaded >> takes about 1 minute inside VirtualBox. We could most likely just provide a >> WATCOM2C package and avoid the whole issue completely. > > Yes, was only for testing purposes :-) > > If v2 is packaged would it be possible to continue shipping the 1.9 branch in > parallel? My impression is that the v2 fork focusses on adding new stuff: > Linux support, 64-bit and so forth… And from time to time they seem to break > older stuff. I at least under Win9x encountered some regressions. > > Greetings, Bernd > At present, the RBE is not setup to include 2 branches from the same GitLab project. It would require a separate GitLab project (with a different name, like watcomv2). I think having two different watcom C packages could cause user confusion on which one to install. It would also take up a lot of space on the OS install media. I think it would probably be better to wait for v2 to produce a stable release and then upgrade our 1.9 package to v2. But, I don’t use watcom. So, maybe I’m wrong. Maybe having both would be better. Or, possibly include 1.9 with the release and have v2 available on the download repo. :-) Jerome ___ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
