Bart Oldeman wrote:
>
> On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Jan Willem Stumpel wrote:
>
> > Seriously: I think the binary install should do exactly the same
> > that the (excellent) source install does; i.e. it should put
> > exactly the same files in exactly the same locations (/usr/local)
> > that are used by ./configure, make, [become root] make install. It
> > should just free the dummy user from the compilation step, for
> > which he/she most probably lacks the tools, and would be
> > confronted with (to her/him) incomprehensible error messages
> > because of that.
>
> In that case the RPM install is more appropriate. Seriously when I created
> the RPM I was wondering if I should still provide the tarball; in general
> users vote with feet so I put it up for rc1 and watched the statistics.
>
> For 1.1.99.1 we have from SF
> http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=49784
> RPM : 9490 downloads
> Source RPM : 2906
> binary tarball : 3976
> source tarball : 7148
> source patch : 435
>
> So it looks like the RPM is the most popular, but there is still
> significant demand for the binary tarball.
>
I suspect all the RPM people got together and padded the count.
The more I see and use of RPM the less I like it.
It is a potential security risk. Please don't go there.
> The point about the binary tarball (as Hans Lermen explained it, as far
> as I know) is that you can quickly and easily check out DOSEMU in your
> home directory *without needing root*. He thought building RPMs, deb's and
> so on was a job for distributors (many of them who get paid for just doing
> that after all, and we don't...)
>
Go Hans Go
> But.. DOSEMU isn't as important anymore as it used to be and some
> distributions no longer have it.
>
Do not think of "not included" as "not important".
If you don't understand - ask Cinderella.
(the one with the ugly step-sisters who kept excluding her)
> For instance, for Red Hat versions:
> 6.0 (Apr 99) and all previos Red Hats had it in base (DOSEMU 0.99.10)
> 6.1 (Sep 99) also (ver 0.99.13)
> 6.2 (Feb 2000) moved it to the extras in "powertools" (0.99.13)
> 7.0 (Aug 2000) powertools (1.0.1)
> 7.1 (Mar 2001) powertools (1.0.1)
> 7.2 (Sep 2001) dropped it and Bernhard Rosenkraenzer maintained the
> previous RH rpm privately.
>
> DOSEMU 1.0.2 (the one where the binary tarball was introduced) was
> released in June 2001.
>
> > It should (like the source install) also be
> > independent of freedos, because dosemu itself is independent of
> > it.
>
> I don't agree with that completely; that's why I included FreeDOS in the
> rpm. The point of the RPM is to be able to:
>
> rpm -i dosemu-1.2.0-1.i386.rpm
> xdosemu
> and it just works after answering a few questions. As part of those
> questions the user may point to another DOS if he wants to but he should
> be able to just press [Enter] a couple of times and it just works.
>
> If another DOS is used; yes it's a bit of a waste of bandwidth but that's
> the price you pay. And anyways many programs (think about mozilla!) are
> much much larger than the 2MB DOSEMU rpm.
>
...mozilla there is a big difference between big and bloated.
> Debian users could use alien (or just get the Debian package from Debian;
> 1.2.0 is in sid now).
tar comes with all Unix and gzip is easy to get. Why waste the
time/effort?
mc lets one see the "inside" of tar and tgz files and even alows one
to get the single replacement for the file one just dammaged without
doing
the MicroSoft complete start over thing.
>
> So -- perhaps your DOSEMU for dummies page should point to the RPM
> instead?
>
again PLEASE - NO
> Anyway, i would welcome any documentation updates! There are even a few
> things on the web you could look at, e.g.
> http://www.wordstar2.com/dos6steps.htm
> http://www.linux2000.com/stsplus-linux.html
> http://www.rkka.org/Campaigns/dehowto.htm
> http://www.rkka.org/Campaigns/lindosfaq.htm
> http://ostrab2.potsdam.edu/CIS310/mydos/install.html
> http://www.linuxandmain.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=363
> "is the bee's knees as far as installation goes" -- can't be _that_
> difficult then ;)
>
> About the font problem. I honestly don't know what is going on. Between
> rc1 and rc2 I added some attempts to desperate get xset +fp ... working
> but apparently there's still something broken, but only for some people;
> for me it can find the font just fine. Seems to depend on the X server
> configuration. But I honestly don't know... I just can't reproduce.
>
has anyone tried compile, install, startx, term, xset +fp, xset rehash
(or whatever you system wants for new x fonts) BEFORE starting DOSEMU?
It has been so long since I went thru that. Seems I had to install
DOSEMU
several times before I got the sequence right. I think that is what it
was.
2001 to 2004 ... well it seems longer. :)
speaking of adding things:
1) pre-compiles need to actually read a config file and accept
.emu extensions instead of ignoring them.
2) need to put himem and UMB back into operation. 1.1.99.1 reduced
available memory considerably. (canceled compress.exe use)
> Bart
>
================
Steve Turner
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-msdos" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
