Re: [Freedos-user] OpenWatcom packaging (was: FreeDOS FDNPKG install CD)

2013-07-29 Thread Mateusz Viste
I don't know OW well since I never used it, so I am not very well aware 
of what parts it needs exactly, but maybe a nice solution would be to 
create multiple packages, where every package would contain a part of OW 
- then the end user could download only what he wants/needs/uses.

That's more or less what I did when packaging DJGPP (although for DJGPP 
it was much easier, because DJGPP provides some 'package segmentation' 
already):

  djgpp - DJGPP environnement
  djgpp-bn - DJGPP binutils: linker, assembler, etc...
  djgpp-bs - DJGPP Bison (a parser generator that is compatible with YACC)
  djgpp-db - DJGPP Debugger (GDB)
  djgpp-fq - DJGPP FAQ documentation
  djgpp-fx - DJGPP Flex (fast lexical analyzer generator)
  djgpp-gc - DJGPP GCC (C compiler)
  djgpp-gp - DJGPP GPP (C++ compiler)
  djgpp-mk - DJGPP make
  djgpp-ob - DJGPP Objective-C compiler
  djgpp-rh - DJGPP RHIDE editor
  djgpp-tx - DJGPP Texinfo (info file viewer)

Anyway, maybe a similar method could be applied to OW, so users who 
wants it all could just install all packages, and users who need only a 
minimalistic compiler would just get the equivalent of Rugxulo's 7z file.

Mateusz





On 07/28/2013 11:35 PM, Rugxulo wrote:
 Hi,

 On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 12:19 PM, Bernd Blaauw bbla...@home.nl wrote:
 Rugxulo schreef op 28-7-2013 0:55:

 1.9 has been latest stable for three years now. I haven't been
 following their latest progress, so I don't really know much about it.

 1.5 was listed in above textfile, guess that's the last one Arkady made.
 Thought you had a more recent archive for v1.8 or so.

 Officially, they stopped including separate .ZIPs after 1.3, so
 everything after that had to be done manually. Most people never
 complained, AFAIK. A quick check shows that Arkady did at least
 package up 1.7.1 for us:

 http://www.openwatcom.org/index.php/Alternative_Open_Watcom_distribution

 Though I did always think having to download 80 MB .EXE (.ZIP'd with
 sfx installer, ~200 MB unpacked) just for the DOS-only portion was
 overkill, hence I did make a DOS host/target only .7z file, which
 was only 7 MB (or 45 MB unpacked). Though if all you wanted was bare
 bones C (and no helpfiles, etc), even this could be a bit much.

 http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/devel/c/openwatcom/1.9/open-watcom-c-dos-1.9.7z


--
See everything from the browser to the database with AppDynamics
Get end-to-end visibility with application monitoring from AppDynamics
Isolate bottlenecks and diagnose root cause in seconds.
Start your free trial of AppDynamics Pro today!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48808831iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user


Re: [Freedos-user] OpenWatcom packaging (was: FreeDOS FDNPKG install CD)

2013-07-29 Thread Rugxulo
Hi,

On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 2:30 AM, Mateusz Viste mate...@viste-family.net wrote:

 maybe a nice solution would be to create multiple packages, where every
 package would contain a part of OW
 - then the end user could download only what he wants/needs/uses.

Well, I figured a full DOS only download was better than full
everything already. Trying to split into smaller pieces might be
nice, but it's quite tedious. It's hard to decide what is best for
everyone, so usually people just throw everything and the kitchen sink
in there.

Sure, you can be ultra minimal in some instances, but most people want
full C++ support, help files, debugger, vi editor, various DOS
extenders, and libraries for all the various memory models.

 That's more or less what I did when packaging DJGPP (although for DJGPP
 it was much easier, because DJGPP provides some 'package segmentation'
 already):

Just a few comments:

1). At minimum, you must always have the *.h headers and libc + libm
(djdev*), GCC proper (gcc*), and BinUtils (bnu*). There's very little
possible use for anything less than that.

2). RHIDE is old (IIRC, built only with G++ 3.3.6) and won't be
further updated, but it does (mostly) work well. It has its own
debugger, RHGDB, based upon older GDB (6.3, in Andris' last 1.5c
snapshot, IIRC). But that relies on COFF debug info, which is somewhat
limited and even broken in later (4.5.x or newer) GCC releases. So in
that case, GDB is better (though less friendly to use, even with
--tui). RHIDE is also basically SETEDIT editor, thus it has built-in a
Info reader, so you don't also need Texinfo.

3). Bison and Flex are rarely needed. I don't ever use them (and don't
understand their syntax anyways). Some few projects need them to build
from sources, but not many do.

4). Make and GPP speak for themselves. A lot of projects need these,
e.g. p7zip, UPX, Dungeon Crawl, etc. Well, even latest GCC 4.8.x is
built with G++ nowadays.

5). The FAQ is ridiculously useful but quite old by now. It's lacking
in some areas because of that. Honestly, a lot of that has to do with
various workarounds in different environments, which seems to be a
stumbling block for many users. That's a bottomless pit, almost,
because nobody can stabilize on one environment. (NTVDM isn't as
useful nor widespread as it used to be, and less emphasis has been
made on building complex packages from atop other environments.)

6). Objective C ... I don't grok it, it seems interesting, but quite
honestly I'm not sure if (barely) anybody has ever even properly
tested this under DJGPP. The few projects I've seen that use this
language rely heavily on third-party libs (GNUstep or similar), which
I'm not sure will work (well, if at all) on DJGPP. At least, I can't
name one public project that ever used this for DJGPP.

7). As far as dependencies go, GNU software (and thus many Linux
projects) assume a lot more than just these. Just off the top of my
head: m4, tar + gzip, sed, awk, grep, bash, pdcurses, diff + patch,
coreutils (file + text + shell utils), etc. It's almost endless!   :-)

 Anyway, maybe a similar method could be applied to OW, so users who
 wants it all could just install all packages, and users who need only a
 minimalistic compiler would just get the equivalent of Rugxulo's 7z file.

The existing .7z is a full DOS install with everything DOS-related.
It could be slimmed if someone didn't want all the fluff, e.g only
wanted to recompile the FreeDOS kernel. I made a small .7z like that
in the past, and it would fit on a floppy (so ~1.4 MB when
compressed). But I'm not sure how many people would find that useful.

--
Get your SQL database under version control now!
Version control is standard for application code, but databases havent 
caught up. So what steps can you take to put your SQL databases under 
version control? Why should you start doing it? Read more to find out.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=49501711iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
___
Freedos-user mailing list
Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user