Re: [Freedos-devel] Why unzip now requires a 386?
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?
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?
Hi guys, BTW, Unzip hasn't had a proper release since 2009 (AFAIK). No, it hasn't. 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. 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.) 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?
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?
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