Re: [Freedos-devel] zoo just needs packaging

Hi! To get the discussion a bit more productive again: https://www.bttr-software.de/forum/board_entry.php?id=21046&page=0&order=time&category=0 is the original thread and apparently RayeR has used Borland C to compile a fixed binary which Fritz has received and tested? So the ONLY thing miss

Re: [Freedos-devel] zoo just needs packaging

On 23.05.2024 20:20, Eric Auer via Freedos-devel wrote: So the ONLY thing missing seems to be putting everything into a ZIP (yeah, no .ZOO) file in the usual FreeDOS structure, as has happened with my RUNTIME recently thanks to some support, help and contributions from Vacek and Jerome :-) I a

Re: [Freedos-devel] zoo just needs packaging

On 5/23/2024 11:29 AM, Bernd Böckmann via Freedos-devel wrote: I second that. No need to throw anything out if it gets fixed. Isn't it an aspect of FreeDOS to keep old software available? Throwing everything out that might not be of use to many would contradict that goal. +1 Ralf

Re: [Freedos-devel] zoo just needs packaging

On 23.05.2024 21:20, Eric Auer via Freedos-devel wrote: Apparently people somehow failed to come to a conclusion which version of ZOO to package under which license in January 2024. Zoo is in the public domain, with no strings attached. Years ago someone from Debain had sent an e-mail to R

Re: [Freedos-devel] zoo just needs packaging

On 23.05.2024 21:29, Bernd Böckmann via Freedos-devel wrote: I already incorporated rugxulos changes to my local copy of the ZOO FreeDOS package repository. I will push the changes as soon as I get write access to the repo. This is ZOO version 2.1. Hey, that's really nice! :) Unfortunately

Re: [Freedos-devel] zoo just needs packaging

On 28.05.2024 19:00, thraex via Freedos-devel wrote: There's also someone who has been updating zoo with bug fixes for UNIX-like platforms on , maybe cherry-picking some of them could make sense. Cherry-picking might not the best idea here. In my opinion pro