Re: [Freedos-devel] Why unzip now requires a 386?

[Joe Forster/STA]

Hi guys,


BTW, Unzip hasn't had a proper release since 2009 (AFAIK).


No, it hasn't.


I was halfway implying that FreeDOS wasn't necessarily incompetent
here, that it just hasn't changed much upstream since then. Hence
there's really nothing "new" to ship.


I know, there really is nothing we can do about it, I just confirmed the 
"AFAIK".



If I may advertize myself, you can download my compilations


But your binaries report the same 6.0 (2009) version. Is there a 
practical difference? Are there additional bugfixes? Or did you just 
want smaller size?


There is supposed to be no difference _at_all_ because I compiled them 
from the original source. The point was that when I compiled them there 
was no official binary package for DOS yet (and no DJGPP 2.05 either). 
:-)


Joe
--
KOVÁCS Balázs aka Joe Forster/STA; s...@c64.rulez.org; http://sta.c64.org
Don't E-mail spam, HTML or uncompressed files! More contacts on homepage--
Developer Access Program for Intel Xeon Phi Processors
Access to Intel Xeon Phi processor-based developer platforms.
With one year of Intel Parallel Studio XE.
Training and support from Colfax.
Order your platform today. http://sdm.link/xeonphi___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] Why unzip now requires a 386?

[Rugxulo]

Hi,

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 4:58 AM, Joe Forster/STA  wrote:
>
>> BTW, Unzip hasn't had a proper release since 2009 (AFAIK).
>
> No, it hasn't.

I was halfway implying that FreeDOS wasn't necessarily incompetent
here, that it just hasn't changed much upstream since then. Hence
there's really nothing "new" to ship.

> Version 6.0 is supposed to be a major release, only with some
> bug fixes (I also reported one and it got fixed) and preparation for another
> major release, version 6.1 (or 7.0). Same with Zip 3.0 -> 3.1.

http://www.info-zip.org/UnZip.html#Future

Unfortunately, not much has changed in recent years (last Unzip beta
was in 2010). I guess 6.00 is "good enough" for most people already.

There was a ZIP 3.1d beta about a year ago (2015), but apparently that
also never got finalized (and isn't even on their SF.net site).

ftp://ftp.info-zip.org/pub/infozip/beta/

> If I may advertize myself, you can download my compilations (DOS 16-bit:
> Borland C++ 3.1; 32-bit: DJGPP 2.03) from
> http://sta.c64.org/dosprg/unz600x.exe and
> http://sta.c64.org/dosprg/zip300x.zip . I haven't extensively tested them,
> though. (I'm using the 32-bit Windows version instead.)

But your binaries report the same 6.0 (2009) version. Is there a
practical difference? Are there additional bugfixes? Or did you just
want smaller size?

As much as I like smaller size, I think DJGPP 2.03p2 is dead and 2.05
should be preferred. It's not wrong to use it, of course (and I still
stick to my own 2.03p2-recompiled Unzip on my MetaDOS floppy that is
almost the exact same size as yours ... sadly not using UPX "lzma" due
to complaint), but I still wonder whether it's "better" or not. Didn't
2.05 fix some rare LFN issues? And of course it'd be bigger, but it'd
also have DJGPP-ish symlinks, which is sometimes nice. If you wanted
small size, symlink support would be where to look to trim the fat
(oops, forgot about printf [doprnt or whatever], ugh).

--
Developer Access Program for Intel Xeon Phi Processors
Access to Intel Xeon Phi processor-based developer platforms.
With one year of Intel Parallel Studio XE.
Training and support from Colfax.
Order your platform today. http://sdm.link/xeonphi
___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] Why unzip now requires a 386?

[Rugxulo]

Hi,

On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Eric Auer  wrote:
>
> The 16 bit unzip is probably quite limited in performance
> and the range of files which it can unzip, but that is only
> a guess...

BTW, Unzip hasn't had a proper release since 2009 (AFAIK).

So, if you're desperate to have a 16-bit build, use networking to grab
the upstream official sfx via ftp (mTCP):

1). 
ftp://ftp.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/util/file/info-zip/unzip/unz600x3.exe
2). ftp://ftp.sac.sk/pub/sac/pack/unz600x3.exe

--
Developer Access Program for Intel Xeon Phi Processors
Access to Intel Xeon Phi processor-based developer platforms.
With one year of Intel Parallel Studio XE.
Training and support from Colfax.
Order your platform today. http://sdm.link/xeonphi
___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel

Re: [Freedos-devel] Why unzip now requires a 386?

[Eric Auer]

Hi sparky4,

>  this is most annoying i cannot do my usual file transfer with the
> freedos 1.2 unzip! gah!! why!?

The 16 bit unzip is probably quite limited in performance
and the range of files which it can unzip, but that is only
a guess... I do wonder how you installed FreeDOS 1.2 on a
286 or 8086, does that not require a boot CD or USB stick
to install from?

Luckily even for older-than-386 we have package managers, so
it would probably be a good idea to mention in the 1.2 unzip
package that older-than-386 users will want unzip16 instead?

Regards, Eric



--
Developer Access Program for Intel Xeon Phi Processors
Access to Intel Xeon Phi processor-based developer platforms.
With one year of Intel Parallel Studio XE.
Training and support from Colfax.
Order your platform today. http://sdm.link/xeonphi
___
Freedos-devel mailing list
Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel