Re: [ql-users] infozip
Does anyone know why unzip is looking for the signal extensions and what they add? It would be nice to have a copy available or a command line option that would totally avoid this minor inconvenience, especially in this case or for new users. People tend to panic over notes like this ;) Some versions of Unzip issue an error message but proceed to work perfectly well for common tasks without Signal Extensions present. I had a correspondence with Jonathan Hudson about this some time ago. He said there are situations where it tries to use SigExt but the message could be safely ignored. If so, it shouldn't have been issued to worry users needlessly was my argument. IIRC it was v5.32 or the version before that (or a small cluster of versions around that version number). Later and earlier versions did not issue the message. Signal Extensions, Environment Variables and other commonly required free extensions are available from the Toolkits page on my software download site http://www.dilwyn.uk6.net/tk/index.html or on disk from my PD library if anyone has problems getting hold of them. -- Dilwyn Jones -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.298 / Virus Database: 265.6.5 - Release Date: 26/12/2004 ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] infozip
Thu, 30 Dec 2004 14:49:01 -0800,() James Hunkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] /wrote: Malcolm, one last thing, where did you get the more recent InfoZip copy? v5.40 is the latest Unzip - have a look at: http://thgodef.nerim.net/smsq/#ARCH You will also need to include the signal extensions with that in the installer (same as I use for QWord installer) and zip the files with the latest version of zip (v2.2 - also from same source). Which signal extensions are you referring to? Infozip in the past has always been independent of extensions that I am aware of. jim Actually yes AND no... Infounzip needs the signal extensions but will function properly (well sort of) without them :-) Phoebus ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] infozip
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 14:49:01 -0800, James Hunkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Malcolm, one last thing, where did you get the more recent InfoZip copy? v5.40 is the latest Unzip - have a look at: http://thgodef.nerim.net/smsq/#ARCH You will also need to include the signal extensions with that in the installer (same as I use for QWord installer) and zip the files with the latest version of zip (v2.2 - also from same source). Which signal extensions are you referring to? Infozip in the past has always been independent of extensions that I am aware of. jim ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm I know - what a pain - unzip does not seem to actually use the signal extensions (sigext30_bin), but always complains if they are not loaded. This has caused us a headache with the QWord installer - you cannot include them in the compiled program, as they are a device driver. They must be loaded in the boot (and not from an SBASIC either). Will send a copy of them to you privately - they are not easy to find on the internet at the drop of a hat. -- Rich Mellor RWAP Services 26 Oak Road, Shelfield, Walsall, West Midlands WS4 1RQ http://www.rwapservices.co.uk/ ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] infozip
On Dec 30, 2004, at 2:56 PM, Rich Mellor wrote: You will also need to include the signal extensions with that in the installer (same as I use for QWord installer) and zip the files with the latest version of zip (v2.2 - also from same source). Which signal extensions are you referring to? Infozip in the past has always been independent of extensions that I am aware of. I know - what a pain - unzip does not seem to actually use the signal extensions (sigext30_bin), but always complains if they are not loaded. This has caused us a headache with the QWord installer - you cannot include them in the compiled program, as they are a device driver. They must be loaded in the boot (and not from an SBASIC either). Will send a copy of them to you privately - they are not easy to find on the internet at the drop of a hat. I will try it without them to see what the actual result is. I may end up staying with what I have been using (unless I have the extensions installed on my test system too). I have grabbed the latest zip and unzip as suggested and will test with these for the upcoming official full QDT release. Jim ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] infozip
Actually yes AND no... Infounzip needs the signal extensions but will function properly (well sort of) without them :-) Phoebus Phoebus, Just what is this (well sort of) behavior you are describing? With the copy of unzip that I included with the demo, I get some warning about non-qdos extensions or something but that is just a warning and hopefully will be ignored by everyone. ? jim ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] infozip
Thu, 30 Dec 2004 15:19:15 -0800,() James Hunkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] /wrote: Actually yes AND no... Infounzip needs the signal extensions but will function properly (well sort of) without them :-) Phoebus Phoebus, Just what is this (well sort of) behavior you are describing? Your installer is C based right? Well with the signal extensions you can verify that the commands that you fed unzip were executed properly and that the return code was 0. Otherwise you have no means to know (other than visually confirming it) that the installation/unzipping process was completed the way it was supposed to the copy of unzip that I included with the demo, I get some warning about non-qdos extensions or something but that is just a warning and hopefully will be ignored by everyone. Non QDOS extensions? Were files zipped at the QL level or at the DOS level (I mean outside QPC that I know you use) Phoebus ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] infozip
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Phoebus Dokos [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Thu, 30 Dec 2004 15:19:15 -0800,() James Hunkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] /wrote: Actually yes AND no... Infounzip needs the signal extensions but will function properly (well sort of) without them :-) Phoebus Phoebus, Just what is this (well sort of) behavior you are describing? Your installer is C based right? Well with the signal extensions you can verify that the commands that you fed unzip were executed properly and that the return code was 0. Otherwise you have no means to know (other than visually confirming it) that the installation/unzipping process was completed the way it was supposed to the copy of unzip that I included with the demo, I get some warning about non-qdos extensions or something but that is just a warning and hopefully will be ignored by everyone. This is why I did not pick this up when I tried it out. I load the signal extension in my boot file. It has long been a requirement of the later zip files and ACP does not work correctly without it - or at least it did not work at some point. I originally loaded it when QTPI needed it. -- Roy Wood Q Branch. 20 Locks Hill, Portslade, Sussex.BN41 2LB Tel: +44 (0) 1273 386030fax: +44 (0) 1273 430501 web : www.qbranch.demon.co.uk ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] infozip
Just tested against the newer zip/unzip. Results: 1) can't mix the new unzip with the old zip (IE: separate email to use what came with the demo) 2) non-QDOS extensions - don't know why these were showing up but don't using the newer zip/unzip 3) the newer zip (at least its defaults) is slower to zip but not bad 4) using the new zip/unzip, the only thing that I see is a warning in SBASIC window 0 that the signal extensions were not found. - this did not impact the installation so can be addressed with a quick note in the readme file (fully verified) - much better than having to worry about making the user install extra stuff to run the installer 5) I do a separate check as I copy files from the install directory to the main directory (do this independently for several reasons). If a file is missing, the install will abort with an appropriate message and information in the log file. Does anyone know why unzip is looking for the signal extensions and what they add? It would be nice to have a copy available or a command line option that would totally avoid this minor inconvenience, especially in this case or for new users. People tend to panic over notes like this ;) Cheers, jim On Dec 30, 2004, at 4:00 PM, Phoebus Dokos wrote: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 15:19:15 -0800,() James Hunkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] /wrote: Actually yes AND no... Infounzip needs the signal extensions but will function properly (well sort of) without them :-) Phoebus Phoebus, Just what is this (well sort of) behavior you are describing? Your installer is C based right? Well with the signal extensions you can verify that the commands that you fed unzip were executed properly and that the return code was 0. Otherwise you have no means to know (other than visually confirming it) that the installation/unzipping process was completed the way it was supposed to the copy of unzip that I included with the demo, I get some warning about non-qdos extensions or something but that is just a warning and hopefully will be ignored by everyone. Non QDOS extensions? Were files zipped at the QL level or at the DOS level (I mean outside QPC that I know you use) Phoebus ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] infozip
The unzip that is included does not need the signal extensions which I have not loaded onto my system (at least yet). The ACP that I am using does not need them either but may be out of date. We should be OK with the current demo distribution as long as everyone uses the included files as they are supposed to. The full release build will probably be with the newer unzip since it is just a minor warning message and doesn't break stuff. But it will help with those who manually try to do things (only up to a point though :) ). Cheers, jim On Dec 30, 2004, at 4:11 PM, Roy wood wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Phoebus Dokos [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Thu, 30 Dec 2004 15:19:15 -0800,() James Hunkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] /wrote: Actually yes AND no... Infounzip needs the signal extensions but will function properly (well sort of) without them :-) Phoebus Phoebus, Just what is this (well sort of) behavior you are describing? Your installer is C based right? Well with the signal extensions you can verify that the commands that you fed unzip were executed properly and that the return code was 0. Otherwise you have no means to know (other than visually confirming it) that the installation/unzipping process was completed the way it was supposed to the copy of unzip that I included with the demo, I get some warning about non-qdos extensions or something but that is just a warning and hopefully will be ignored by everyone. This is why I did not pick this up when I tried it out. I load the signal extension in my boot file. It has long been a requirement of the later zip files and ACP does not work correctly without it - or at least it did not work at some point. I originally loaded it when QTPI needed it. -- Roy Wood Q Branch. 20 Locks Hill, Portslade, Sussex.BN41 2LB Tel: +44 (0) 1273 386030fax: +44 (0) 1273 430501 web : www.qbranch.demon.co.uk ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] infozip
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 16:13:54 -0800, James Hunkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: cut Does anyone know why unzip is looking for the signal extensions and what they add? It would be nice to have a copy available or a command line option that would totally avoid this minor inconvenience, especially in this case or for new users. People tend to panic over notes like this ;) They form an interface for the Unix shell (and QL shell). I think that Roy is correct in that they may be used by ACP. I load them in the installer boot file - not a problem then. You would have to recompile Infounzip and Infozip from the sources - unfortunately, the sources are now at v5.50 which has never been tested on the QL so far as I know -- Rich Mellor RWAP Services 26 Oak Road, Shelfield, Walsall, West Midlands WS4 1RQ http://www.rwapservices.co.uk/ ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Re: [ql-users] infozip
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 20:12:42 -0500, Phoebus Dokos [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 00:59:06 -,() Rich Mellor [EMAIL PROTECTED] /wrote: On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 16:13:54 -0800, James Hunkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: cut Does anyone know why unzip is looking for the signal extensions and what they add? It would be nice to have a copy available or a command line option that would totally avoid this minor inconvenience, especially in this case or for new users. People tend to panic over notes like this ;) They form an interface for the Unix shell (and QL shell). I think that Roy is correct in that they may be used by ACP. I load them in the installer boot file - not a problem then. You would have to recompile Infounzip and Infozip from the sources - unfortunately, the sources are now at v5.50 which has never been tested on the QL so far as I know AFAIK, it was either Peter or Thierry that compiled the whole InfoUnzip distro with qdos-gcc... that should add another 20-30% speed over the standard since its maths routines are a lot faster. And which version of InfoUnzip would that be?? Probably not v5.40 or later... This is the problem - as with Proforma - if you want to use the qdos-gcc compiled version, you have to use an earlier version of the main program, because it only ever seems to be done once and never updated. Maybe you could persuade someone to take on the job of Info Zip and Unzip support and compile the latest version with qdos-gcc. Trouble is - plenty of people willing to work for nothing, but they will not provide the support when their version no longer works.. Of course IIRC Dave Walker was working on the new edition of C68 last time I exchanged emails with him that had the same libc_a as qdos-gcc which should make c68 code at least as fast as qdos-gcc and with the inclusion of gwass as the assembler a lot faster (of course that code won't probably run on standard QLs or QPC) And how long ago was this - when will a new version of C58 be released and supported? I don't think any of the official distributions have been changed in over 2+ years. Everyone talks about why software and smsq/e should be released under a GPL licence or similar, but no-one sticks around long enough to support their release leaving it up to someone else to work out how to recompile newer versions and look at the changes in the sources on the Unix versions of the program to see whether they can be incorporated or not on a QL version. -- Rich Mellor RWAP Services 26 Oak Road, Shelfield, Walsall, West Midlands WS4 1RQ http://www.rwapservices.co.uk/ ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
