Re: MSDOS name conversion
"brian (b.c.) white" <firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote on 13.02.96 in <"3094 Tue Feb 13 17:09:55 1996"@bnr.ca>>:
> >The longer I read this thread, the more I get convinced that we should
> >simply stop having gigantic, unsplit packages in Debian. There's not
> >really any benefit in having them, and there is obvious benefit in having
> >split packages.
> See my previous comments about running "split" after the FTP is done, and
> the algorithm to pack floppies efficiently.
I already had seen it. It didn't convince me.
> >Nice. Now do the same under MS-DOS. That's the sort of system I did my
> >first FTPs from, several years ago. Fortunately, I had room. If I hadn't
> I could. The FTP protocol is quite simple. Splitting after download is
> easier, though.
Umm ... you may have forgotten that under MS-DOS, there is no standard TCP/
IP stack. Instead, there are several completely incompatible ones, and
most have no public documentation.
I don't believe you could.
> Really? No where is there "split" for OS/2? Are you sure? I'll bet there
Nowhere in the system.
> is pkzip for OS/2 and it should handle splitting across floppies. Of
It might, though I don't have it (I'm not even sure it exists). I have the
Info-Zip, and if it can do that, I stll have to find out how. And I have
yet to find a need for splitting.
And anyway, you're now talking third party software. Do *you* want to make
sure a program to do this for every possible operating system a downloader
could have is somewhere on the Debian ftp archive, some of which will
undoubtably not be free software?
> Why is a simple DOS program that splits FTP'd package files optimally among
> many floppies a *lot* worse? Why is it worse at all?
Don't forget the impossible task of splitting them during receive.
It's a lot worse because it puts a lot of work on a lot of people, many of
whom probably aren't very good at that stuff in the first place, instead
of putting only very little work on very few people.