Re: [Freedos-user] What about changing our packaging style for v1.1?
It looks like you want it more reliable... Sounds very reasonable. Actually more pros (more easy for you, faster) then cons (file size). As you have the most work with it, do it. -mr Mateusz Viste schrieb: Hi people! So far, we have always used packaging sources and binaries differently (that is, in separate packages, like memx.zip and mems.zip). I am trying to put some effort these days into syncing some packages to make them ready for v1.1, and I have to tell that handling sources and binaries in different ways is a big pain. Besides that, the source package doesn't contain its own LSM file, which makes its hard (or at least unreliable) to keep track of what source is installed in what version. Therefore, I am proposing to drop the sources / binaries way of thinking, and stay with one package per program. For example, a mem.zip package would contain both sources and binaries. It would allow me to work much faster on packaging, and hopefully could lead to a v1.1 sooner. Some reasons to do that (quotes from Eric): - it is easy to delete /source/mem/* to keep only binaries, - it is not really allowed with GNU GPL License to publish binaries without sources anyway, - it can be hard for people to find exactly the right version of the sources manually later, so it is best to include them, - it makes life easier for installing and you can always drop the sources after installing. Please tell me what are your opinions in that matter. Best regards, Mateusz Viste -- ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user -- ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] What about changing our packaging style for v1.1?
Hi, i totally agree with Mateusz and Michael also, once there is a source directory i think we can modify softwares to select 'binary only, source only or both' See YA! Geraldo Sapere Aude Non ducor, duco São Paulo, Brasil, -3gmt site: http://exdev.sf.net/ msn: geraldo_boca_at_hotmail.com skype: geraldo-netto icq: 145-061-456 2009/4/4 Michael Reichenbach michael_reichenb...@freenet.de: It looks like you want it more reliable... Sounds very reasonable. Actually more pros (more easy for you, faster) then cons (file size). As you have the most work with it, do it. -mr Mateusz Viste schrieb: Hi people! So far, we have always used packaging sources and binaries differently (that is, in separate packages, like memx.zip and mems.zip). I am trying to put some effort these days into syncing some packages to make them ready for v1.1, and I have to tell that handling sources and binaries in different ways is a big pain. Besides that, the source package doesn't contain its own LSM file, which makes its hard (or at least unreliable) to keep track of what source is installed in what version. Therefore, I am proposing to drop the sources / binaries way of thinking, and stay with one package per program. For example, a mem.zip package would contain both sources and binaries. It would allow me to work much faster on packaging, and hopefully could lead to a v1.1 sooner. Some reasons to do that (quotes from Eric): - it is easy to delete /source/mem/* to keep only binaries, - it is not really allowed with GNU GPL License to publish binaries without sources anyway, - it can be hard for people to find exactly the right version of the sources manually later, so it is best to include them, - it makes life easier for installing and you can always drop the sources after installing. Please tell me what are your opinions in that matter. Best regards, Mateusz Viste -- ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user -- ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user -- ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] What about changing our packaging style for v1.1?
Hi If putting them into a single zip forces that the sources are installed everytime. I would disagree. Its an extra step for the end user to manually delete them. what if this is being used in an embedded environment where space is premium. Not all users of dos are technical like us, the more steps that you ad the more cumbersome it becomes. and to be honest, even I would not want the sources for 80%, the other 20% would be temporary. if there was a way to automate the removal of the directory or not create them that would work. usul -- ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] What about changing our packaging style for v1.1?
On Saturday 04 April 2009 17:22, usul wrote: If putting them into a single zip forces that the sources are installed everytime. I would disagree. Its an extra step for the end user to manually delete them. No, no extra step required. See below. if there was a way to automate the removal of the directory or not create them that would work. That was the whole idea when I wrote it is easy to delete /source/mem/* to keep only binaries. It means easy for me, the developer, to make my installation program remove source files when necessary. For example FDUPDATE would ask each time the user whether he wants sources or not with the given program. From the end-user point of view, there would be no difference. The only difference comes at the dev packaging level, where all involved people will have to deal with this new package organisation. Best regards, Mateusz Viste -- You'll find my public OpenPGP key at http://www.viste-family.net/mateusz/pub_key signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS localisation project
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Mateusz Viste mate...@viste-family.net wrote: Hi all! It has been a long time that the poor translation management was bothering me. There is no easy way to know what needs to be translated, and what is already translated but not shipped with the package for whatever reason. I worked a moment today on a new project: The FreeDOS localisation project: http://www.viste-family.net/mateusz/fdlang/ I think that such centralized translation point could greatly improve FreeDOS translations, as people would know exactly what has to be translated, where to check wheter any translations for a given program has been made, and where to send any self-made translations. Don't hesitate to send me any translations you have, which aren't listed on my website! This is a great effort! Thanks for doing this. However, I think this would be better managed inside the FreeDOS Wiki. That way, it's not just one person who's managing the translations, but everyone. That would make it easier to update new translations and make them available to the developers. I don't see your name in the list as a Wiki editor, but Aitor or Eric can set you up. First create a Wiki account for yourself. This should happen automatically if you click the Log in link on the Wiki, and sign in using your SourceForge credentials. Then, email Eric or Aitor to add you as an Editor. (I can also do it, but I am trying to transition my duties to someone else.) -jh -- ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] FDUPDATE crash
I was wrong about wget not crashing, it just took it a long time to crash running it on it's own. Is the kernel going to be reworked anytime soon to remove this fnode concept? -- ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] patents - was: LFN in FreeDOS kernel? - was: aimed compatibility?
But then it wouldn't be compatible with the LFN that came with Windows9X and is used in the millions of USB devices or the like, nor with the applications that are LFN-aware (unless you'd like to rewrite the DOS LFN API descript.ion-based... Aitor 2009/4/2 Eric Auer e.a...@jpberlin.de: Hi! So why cant we just create a database/table - file that allows lookup in a second area, either a file on the hard drive or a separate partition. then based on the file/directory ID and store that in the database table completely separate from the FAT if we don't touch fat it should be fine. If we are using a different method and system we are safe. In reality, though, linux filesystem drivers have been using this method of accessing/writing long filenames for years; if Microsoft were to go after an operating system, it would be linux first. And as Eric pointed out to me, they seem to go more after embedded devices that use long filenames on FAT filesystems. So really, I don't think there's anything to worry about. I think a descript.ion file based driver to support long file names would be a fine idea indeed :-). And it would avoid the ugly kludgy way in which MS stores LFN spread over multiple directory entries. Eric -- ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user -- ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS localisation project
Hi Petr! On Saturday 04 April 2009 20:53, Petr Ullmann wrote: I would like to start with translation of FreeDOS to czech language. Where can I find some informations about way of FreeDOS translations or informations about translation project? In fact, there isn't much you have to know, translating stuff in FreeDOS is really easy :-) All you have to to, is set two variables in your system: SET LANG=CZ SET NLSPATH=C:\FREEDOS\NLS\ (obviously, you will have to adjust this one) Then, all NLS-aware applications will start looking into your NLSPATH to check if they can find a translation file for your language. A simple test you could do is to type MEM in your default configuration, then set the language to, say, french (by setting the two variables above), and check mem again. You will notice that the language change is taken into account instantly :) However, translating the shell is a bit more touchy, as it requires some partial recompilation + appending a trailer on the binary file... You will have to download the source package containing the kernel, and retrieve english.lng and english.err files, and translate all which is between : and . of each section. If I remember correctly, this package contained also tools to compile translations, but I can't help you much there, as I have done that last time 4 years ago, and I completely forgot all the techy details... Anyway, the very first thing to do is retrieving all *.en files from http://www.viste-family.net/mateusz/fdlang/EN/ , and translate them into your language, changing the extension to .cz. Don't hesitate to send me any file you could have done, that way I will be able to put it into my repository. Then, when all *.en files will be done, we will see for Kernel translation. ;-) Best regards, Mateusz Viste Mateusz Viste napsal(a): Hi all! It has been a long time that the poor translation management was bothering me. There is no easy way to know what needs to be translated, and what is already translated but not shipped with the package for whatever reason. I worked a moment today on a new project: The FreeDOS localisation project: http://www.viste-family.net/mateusz/fdlang/ I think that such centralized translation point could greatly improve FreeDOS translations, as people would know exactly what has to be translated, where to check wheter any translations for a given program has been made, and where to send any self-made translations. Don't hesitate to send me any translations you have, which aren't listed on my website! Best regards, Mateusz Viste -- You'll find my public OpenPGP key at http://www.viste-family.net/mateusz/pub_key signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS localisation project
Okay, found it :) For translating the FreeCOM shell, you will need to download the file below: http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/dos/command/0.83beta/083Beta04/localize.zip In that archive, you will find a nice how-to about translating the command shell and compiling the translation files ;-) Best regards, Mateusz Viste -- You'll find my public OpenPGP key at http://www.viste-family.net/mateusz/pub_key signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] FreeDOS localisation project
Thank you again. Now, I will translate all files from fdlang repostitory and then I can do something more advanced :-) Best regards, Mateusz Viste napsal(a): Okay, found it :) For translating the FreeCOM shell, you will need to download the file below: http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/dos/command/0.83beta/083Beta04/localize.zip In that archive, you will find a nice how-to about translating the command shell and compiling the translation files ;-) Best regards, Mateusz Viste -- ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user -- ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
[Freedos-user] (OT) speaking about free software
Just thought I'd let people know: I will be a Nifty Guest for Penguicon 7.0, a science fiction and open source software convention. This year’s Penguicon will be May 1-3, in Romulus, Michigan. I’m presenting at two sessions: “Linux in the Enterprise” and “Starting your own Free/open source software project.” It should be a lot of fun! If you’re planning to attend Penguicon, look me up. I’d love to see lots of FreeDOS friends in the audience! Also, if you live in Minnesota, in (or near) Minneapolis: I’m speaking at the University of Minnesota in a few weeks. I don’t have an exact date yet, but it will be mid-April. My talk will be about Free software development, using FreeDOS as an example. I’m looking forwards to it! I'll not spam the lists with this again. I'll post further updates at my blog: http://www.freedos.org/jhall/ :-) -jh -- ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] What about changing our packaging style for v1.1?
On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 9:30 AM, Mateusz Viste mate...@viste-family.net wrote: Hi people! So far, we have always used packaging sources and binaries differently (that is, in separate packages, like memx.zip and mems.zip). I am trying to put some effort these days into syncing some packages to make them ready for v1.1, and I have to tell that handling sources and binaries in different ways is a big pain. Besides that, the source package doesn't contain its own LSM file, which makes its hard (or at least unreliable) to keep track of what source is installed in what version. Therefore, I am proposing to drop the sources / binaries way of thinking, and stay with one package per program. For example, a mem.zip package would contain both sources and binaries. It would allow me to work much faster on packaging, and hopefully could lead to a v1.1 sooner. Some reasons to do that (quotes from Eric): - it is easy to delete /source/mem/* to keep only binaries, - it is not really allowed with GNU GPL License to publish binaries without sources anyway, - it can be hard for people to find exactly the right version of the sources manually later, so it is best to include them, - it makes life easier for installing and you can always drop the sources after installing. Please tell me what are your opinions in that matter. These days, hard drives have lots of capacity. While including the sources would add to the size, we're talking on the order of MB, not GB. Including the source and binaries together certainly provides that every program in the FreeDOS 1.1 distro also includes the source code. I am a big fan of this. Can you put this in the FreeDOS Wiki, so people don't have to revisit this topic again in a year after we've forgotten? :-) Thanks! -jh -- ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
Re: [Freedos-user] Freedos 1.1 status???
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 10:06 AM, Mateusz Viste mate...@viste-family.net wrote: On Friday 03 April 2009 16:56, Alain M. wrote: UNARJ.EXE may be freely used and distributed. Doesn't matter anyway - I just checked my repository, and there is only the OpenSource version of ARJ, so no license problem there :) Correct. The ARJ we have listed on the FreeDOS Software List points to: http://sourceforge.net/projects/arj This is under the GNU GPL according to its entry in the SF database: # License : GNU General Public License (GPL) -jh -- ___ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
