Hello,
I think that it's a good idea overall that one can decide the folder
where one can install the "big" programs, as could be to have a
OpenWatcom or FreePascal distribution, whereas the single-binary ones
(or equally smaller) should be merged into the freedos\bin directory.
2009/4/6 Eric Au
Hi!
> It appears that any binary package installed on FreeDOS goes to /BIN.
Almost. Packages which need many files in the same "BINish"
directory have separate directories. This includes for
example Arachne, DOG, Emacs, Network and USB driver bags,
FBC, GhostScript, the 1.0 game collection, FDSM
Hi,
as long as core / tool programs are in some directory in PATH,
things will be fine. For other apps, people can add a batch
into one of the directories in PATH or they can use ALIAS or
just chdir to the place to run stuff :-). Of course PATH can
differ between different DOSes and different peo
I don't think the utilities directory should be called SBIN. On Unix,
this usually implies tools for administrative purposes, as opposed to
utilities that can be used by anyone.
--
This SF.net email is sponsored by:
High Q
Hi again and sorry for adding to the high mail traffic :-p
> there are many approach to do this,
> but we need to follow a practical approach
> so, i'm in favor of a \bin directory for all
> fd packages and 3rd party sw should be
> separeted with their developers don't want to
> create a 'fdished
Hi,
> We already may check that, simply looking wheter there is a \appinfo\*.lsm
> file or not.
> The idea was rather to make a difference between "FreeDOS packages containing
> system files, like format" and "FreeDOS packages containing some other apps,
> like Arachne". Something in a concept
Hi!
>> My exe is using a file called cwsdpmi.exe but cwsdpmi.exe is actually a
>> renamed hdpmi32.exe. Normally I would assume to cd to the folder where
>> my app is inside and to start it from there.
>>
>> But if it's all mixed into the /bin directory the normal cwsdpmi.exe
>> will be overwritte
Hi!
>> Any usual commercial and shareware apps for msdos with an install
>> create its own dir. To have 100+ folders at apps is not good.
We do not have many "apps": Everything in BASE can go into
the same fdos/bin directory for example, and many of the
UTIL things can be sorted into relatively
On Monday 06 April 2009 00:14, Marco Antonio Achury Palma wrote:
> Any usual commercial and shareware apps for msdos with an install
> create its own dir. To have 100+ folders at apps is not good. why not:
>
> /office
> /dev
> /audio
> /video
> /games/adventure
> /games/arcade
> /games/puzzle
I g
On Monday 06 April 2009 01:18, Michael Reichenbach wrote:
> I am working on an DOS application I wanted to package into FreeDOS's
> format by default.
>
> My exe is using a file called cwsdpmi.exe but cwsdpmi.exe is actually a
> renamed hdpmi32.exe. Normally I would assume to cd to the folder wher
On Monday 06 April 2009 01:50, Jim Hall wrote:
> I once had an idea that we should put an LSM header/comment in the zip
> file. If the FD package tool saw an LSM there, it would know the zip
> file was really a FD pkg and not a third-party zip file.
Hi Jim!
We already may check that, simply looki
> of course, this is my opinion and we must
> open it for vote, imho
Even though I am in favor of splitting up things, I am wondering if
this is bad time for this discussion.
As it may delay getting out 1.1 even further.
Perhaps this should be tabled till after the release.
usul
---
Hi guys,
well, as we can see,
there are many approach to do this,
but we need to follow a practical approach
so, i'm in favor of a \bin directory for all
fd packages and 3rd party sw should be
separeted with their developers don't want to
create a 'fdished package'
of course, this is my opinion a
Is better to do something like %DOSAPPS% so you can have apps on their own dir
2009/4/5, Blair Campbell :
>> It appears that any binary package installed on FreeDOS goes to /BIN.
>> Besides that, there's no clear directive about "how to install 3rd party
>> apps".
>
> It should be %DOSDIR%\bin
>
>
> It appears that any binary package installed on FreeDOS goes to /BIN. Besides
> that, there's no clear directive about "how to install 3rd party apps".
It should be %DOSDIR%\bin
>
> I would propose the following rules:
> - Any DOS replacement stuff (move, tree, format...) goes to \BIN\
> - Any
>
> However, it's not a trivial thing to do, as we would need a way to tell "this
> is a FreeDOS package, while this one is 3rd party one". Nothing like that is
> ready today. Obviously, it would require some additional developpement on
> FDPKG, too...
>
I once had an idea that we should put an
Well, I also thought about that.
I am working on an DOS application I wanted to package into FreeDOS's
format by default.
My exe is using a file called cwsdpmi.exe but cwsdpmi.exe is actually a
renamed hdpmi32.exe. Normally I would assume to cd to the folder where
my app is inside and to start it
Any usual commercial and shareware apps for msdos with an install
create its own dir. To have 100+ folders at apps is not good. why not:
/office
/dev
/audio
/video
/games/adventure
/games/arcade
/games/puzzle
2009/4/5, Mateusz Viste :
> On Sunday 05 April 2009 19:15, Marco Antonio Achury Palma w
On Sunday 05 April 2009 19:15, Marco Antonio Achury Palma wrote:
> I agree is nice to have separated paths for base system and apps. This
> is the good old way to make things. The most of the dos apps are self
> contained without dependencies. One problem I remember is to have
> path to all the a
I agree is nice to have separated paths for base system and apps. This
is the good old way to make things. The most of the dos apps are self
contained without dependencies. One problem I remember is to have
path to all the apps, sometimes become bigger than the available
environment variable spac
Utilities too late the party?
Because I think the utilities and freedos "core" should be separated.
Here is one reason why.
Say I am working on a program that I want to be dos compatible.
any Dos and not just free dos, or I need to test the compatibility.
C:\FDOS
C:\MSDOS
etc
and this could be
On Sunday 05 April 2009 16:11, Jim Hall wrote:
> I think Mateusz is suggesting separating the programs from the "base"
> list (in ...\BIN) from those that are in "devel" or "util" (in
> ...\SBIN). In this case, FORMAT would show up in ...\BIN.
Yes, it was indeed my idea...
> Imagine all the (new?
On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 6:48 AM, Christian Masloch wrote:
>> - Any DOS replacement stuff (move, tree, format...) goes to \BIN\
>> - Any system enhacement (grep, ls, pcisleep, cwsdpmi, fdupdate...) goes
>> to \SBIN\
>
> Why should I want two directories with binaries? Plus, some of the
> binaries mi
> - Any DOS replacement stuff (move, tree, format...) goes to \BIN\
> - Any system enhacement (grep, ls, pcisleep, cwsdpmi, fdupdate...) goes
> to \SBIN\
Why should I want two directories with binaries? Plus, some of the
binaries might be appropriate for both \BIN and \SBIN (even FORMAT!).
Re
24 matches
Mail list logo
