Re: 1.2.0 binary install

[Jan Willem Stumpel <jstumpel@planet.nl>]

Ged Haywood wrote:

> Actually I dislike the verbosity,
My point was that I think *dummies* like the verbosity. If you are
a dummy, then of course I am mistaken.

> but 'v' option or not, the tar manpage on my boxes says: [..]
Linux as a whole (not only dosemu) suffers from incredibly bad
documentation. xfzv works, and has worked for years, in any
permutation.

> Sounds like time to send in a documentation patch. I tell you
> what.  You write it, I'll test it.  Deal?
You never (as you said) even tried the binary install. Some
tester! But I did. Let's do it the other way round: you make it
work (including the font part), then I write the doc. Deal?

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. It should (like the source install) also be
independent of freedos, because dosemu itself is independent of
it. Like the source install, it should ask which directory is the
'C drive'. If user/dummy does not know, it should be pointed out
that some form of DOS is needed, and installation of freedos offered.

> PS: Do you always send UTF-8?
In principle, yes.. but in Mozilla, apostrophes often behave
weirdly, don't quite understand why. ASCII is supposed to be valid
UTF-8. 'Send'? '73'? Radio?

Regards, Jan