On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 6:48 AM, Christian Masloch <c...@bttr-software.de> 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 might be appropriate for both \BIN and \SBIN (even FORMAT!). >
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. This level of separation isn't a good idea, IMO. It will make package creation much harder, because the person making the package will need to have some knowledge of where this program would need to be installed. That's probably easy if it's only Mateusz making the packages - but will be much more difficult to maintain this if the developers themselves put their zip file in FD package format. Imagine all the (new?) packages that should really be in "util" that might be put in ...\BIN format because the developer/contributor wants them to be in "base" (even though the program might not replicate any original functionality of MSDOS.) The zip file would look like it's in pkg format, but really someone would need to go into the file and put it into the ...\SBIN layout. It's better to keep with the original spec on this, use the ...\BIN for all binaries. -jh ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
