On 08/15/2014 03:01 PM, Tom Ehlert wrote:
> it should have been
>c:\USR\BIN\ZIP %0 %1 %2 %3 %4 %5 %6 %7 %8 %9
Okay, I understand now, you were simply trying to be able to use 10
parameters instead of 9. I didn't ever think about this limitation,
since 9 parameters were always enough for
Hi Mateusz,
> On 08/15/2014 12:29 PM, Tom Ehlert wrote:
>> a better way to achieve the same effect would be a directory on the
>> PATH with batches that redirect to the proper location.
>>
>> ZIP.BAT
>> shift
>> c:\USR\BIN\ZIP %1 %2 %3 %4 %5 %6 %7 %8 %9
> Exactly what I was saying, yes.
Hi Tom,
On 08/15/2014 12:29 PM, Tom Ehlert wrote:
> a better way to achieve the same effect would be a directory on the
> PATH with batches that redirect to the proper location.
>
> ZIP.BAT
> shift
> c:\USR\BIN\ZIP %1 %2 %3 %4 %5 %6 %7 %8 %9
Exactly what I was saying, yes. For now, that's
>> 'Which means "Accept what the package manager does by default." I
>> mostly concur, but an advanced user might have reasons for wanting
>> things elsewhere. It's nice it the package manager gives them an
>> option to do so and specify where, but if it needs AUTOEXEC.BAT
>> modified for things
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 5:30 PM, dmccunney wrote:
[SNIP]
>
> 'Which means "Accept what the package manager does by default." I
> mostly concur, but an advanced user might have reasons for wanting
> things elsewhere. It's nice it the package manager gives them an
> option to do so and specify whe
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Ulrich wrote:
> Am 14.08.2014 um 17:51 schrieb dmccunney :
>> On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Mateusz Viste wrote:
>>
>>> But the question now is different (I took the liberty to change the
>>> subject of this message accordingly): where would you put applicatio
Am 14.08.2014 um 17:51 schrieb dmccunney :
> On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Mateusz Viste wrote:
>
>> But the question now is different (I took the liberty to change the
>> subject of this message accordingly): where would you put applications
>> that need to be reachable from %PATH% ?
>
>
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Mateusz Viste wrote:
> But the question now is different (I took the liberty to change the
> subject of this message accordingly): where would you put applications
> that need to be reachable from %PATH% ?
>From a system viewpoint, it doesn't matter, as long as
On 08/14/2014 04:36 PM, Louis Santillan wrote:
> One school of thought is the NextSTEP style folders [0]. So you would
> have functionally named folders /System, /User, /Programs, /Games,
> etc.
This is actually how it already works. FDNPKG uses 'categories' of
software, and puts software there
