Re: [Freedos-kernel] FreeDOS 2035a detail discussion: FreeCOM, menu compatibility

[Steffen Kaiser]

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004, Arkady V.Belousov wrote:
Hello,
Hi!
19-éÀÌ-2004 12:00 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steffen Kaiser) wrote
to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
    You mean "Arkady called MS-DOS-style empty environment broken"? Yes, I
call this. But this is MS-DOS and all its bugs become standard and called
SK> So, you've "fixed" the FreeDOS kernel to issue the broken MS-DOS "empty
SK> environment" to programs, did I understood it correctly?
    No. I fix the task.c:ChildEnv(), which was wrongly scans empty
environment with non-MS-DOS-style layout (only one empty ASCIIZ string). And
yes, currently ChildEnv() for empty environment uses MS-DOS layout.
Huh? So I did understood it correctly!?
What does the kernel do now, when the "originally correct empty 
environment layout" arrives there? Does it care at all, well, it 
shouldn't?

What you
have against?
You've broke the compatibly with existing FreeDOS-near programs. Have you 
even checked, which other FreeDOS programs are effected by this change? 
Considered the results of the change?
What bugs me is: You've intentionally broke the compatibly with existing 
implementations for no good reason, that couldn't wait yet another month, 
esp. when there is a suitable work-around.

SK> Actually, it would be cleaner to never issue an empty environment. You
    MS-DOS may. Also, "not issue empty environment" anyway mean "don't make
availabel startup path" (what makes FreeCOM unhappy).
To pass a non-empty environment to a programs means that it is not able to 
get argv[0]?? How can that be? How got programs, e.g. FreeCOM, aquire its 
start path from argv[0] during the time, the default environment included 
the PATH=. variable?

    This was based on observation of all available documentation.
Unfortunately, documented layout makes smartdrv broken.
FreeDOS is shipped with smartdrv. I never knew that.
Utilities, unhappy). Also, MS-DOS _passes_ empty environment, why we
shouldn't?
Because this introduces known incompatibly with existing implementations, 
and I expect that such stuff is discussed in advance among all affected 
people. So those ones can prepare themselves, issue testees and tighten 
their branches, in order to do not mock up the FreeDOS distribution and 
have the complaining started.

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004, tom ehlert wrote:
Hello Tom,
put MSDOS + current distributed FreeCOM on floppy.
boot, and say F5 (skip everything)
Yup, your patch is in CVS and is working, as far as I can tell.
===
For me this discussion looks like whether or not I have to emit another 
pre-compiled FreeCOM for each change of a line of code.
I have made my statement about it and I have no resources to change that.
This discussion is, probably, not pointless, but it is fruitless.

Bye,
--
Steffen Kaiser