Hi, BTW, thanks for responding to this.
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 12:59 AM, Mateusz Viste <mate...@viste.fr> wrote: > > Hi, I'm temporarily hijacking this thread for FDNPKG's agenda :) You're of course welcome to do so. > On 11/06/2015 22:55, Rugxulo wrote: >> FDNPKG is a great idea, but we need more package(r)s. Well, I did try >> to install something from there yesterday (under QEMU to RAM disk), >> but it seemed to expect "c:\games" hardcoded. (Maybe I'm wrong?) Meh. I didn't mean this was a "bug", just that I found the default to be a bit curious. > I assume you were installing a game, right? Then indeed, games are > supposed to be installed in whatever your "game" directory is. This > location is configurable in FDNPKG.CFG - the default value for GAMES > being C:\GAMES. Yes, I was just randomly testing it, trying to install Paku Paku. I know FDNPKG works well, but in this case the default dir was very confusing to me. > What worries me, is that you imply the process hasn't worked for you - > am I right? Even if you do not have a C:\GAMES directory, FDNPKG should > create it on the fly. Haven't it happened? Could you please provide some > light on this? If there is a trouble with FDNPKG, I'd love to know more > about it so I can fix it. Actually, here's the problem. I was testing my silly MetaDOS, and there is no "c:\" at all! I guess the workaround here is to manually adjust the *.CFG or manually unzip it somewhere else (e.g. RAM drive). > > It doesn't rely on FDNPKG at all. Granted, I like FDNPKG, but you have > > to package things a very specific way first, and that's very tedious. > > That's, I think, the cost of automation. But I don't totally agree on > this process being "very specific". Yes, there are some minimum rules to > follow, but it's a strict necessity if FDNPKG have to be reliable and > deterministic in what it do. I don't mean to complain. In fact, I need to eventually make some more packages for you (e.g. P5). It's a very interesting (and successful) idea, but I still can't convince myself to 100% exclusively use it (if you know what I mean, I don't know how to explain it). > Example for creating a game package, let's call it "weewee". > Create following directories: > \APPINFO\ > \GAMES\WEEWEE\ > \SOURCE\WEEWEE\ > > Put a LSM file describing the game (version, license.. usual stuff) into > \APPINFO, then all games files to \GAMES\WEEWEE\ and all source files > (if any) to \SOURCE\WEEWEE\. Zip up the entire thing, and that's all - > your package is ready for deployment. I (vaguely) know that already, and it makes perfect sense. My problem is the whole "must manually modify third-party .ZIPs and host them on a specific place" instead of just grabbing directly and manually installing. I know the latter is more error-prone, but it's just not feasible to manually change every single download on the planet into a proper "package". Again, I admit that manually grabbing files is not much better. URLs break, websites go down, mirrors disappear. But at least it's easier than constantly trying to manually unzip / adjust / rezip / upload / point to. I don't know if I've expressed this opinion properly. I have no problems with FDNPKG at all, nor packages in general. It's just that there is no perfect solution, sadly. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
