[Freedos-devel] Why unzip now requires a 386?

[sparky4]

.... this is most annoying i cannot do my usual file transfer with the
freedos 1.2 unzip! gah!! why!?



--
View this message in context: http://freedos.10956.n7.nabble.com/Why-unzip-now-requires-a-386-tp25809.html
Sent from the FreeDOS - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

[Eric Auer]

Hi sparky4,

Post by sparky4
.... this is most annoying i cannot do my usual file transfer with the
freedos 1.2 unzip! gah!! why!?

The 16 bit unzip is probably quite limited in performance
and the range of files which it can unzip, but that is only
a guess... I do wonder how you installed FreeDOS 1.2 on a
286 or 8086, does that not require a boot CD or USB stick
to install from?

Luckily even for older-than-386 we have package managers, so
it would probably be a good idea to mention in the 1.2 unzip
package that older-than-386 users will want unzip16 instead?

Regards, Eric

[Rugxulo]

Hi,

Post by Eric Auer
The 16 bit unzip is probably quite limited in performance
and the range of files which it can unzip, but that is only
a guess...

BTW, Unzip hasn't had a proper release since 2009 (AFAIK).

So, if you're desperate to have a 16-bit build, use networking to grab
the upstream official sfx via ftp (mTCP):

1). ftp://ftp.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/util/file/info-zip/unzip/unz600x3.exe
2). ftp://ftp.sac.sk/pub/sac/pack/unz600x3.exe

[Joe Forster/STA]

Hi guys,

Post by Rugxulo
BTW, Unzip hasn't had a proper release since 2009 (AFAIK).

No, it hasn't. Version 6.0 is supposed to be a major release, only with
some bug fixes (I also reported one and it got fixed) and preparation for
another major release, version 6.1 (or 7.0). Same with Zip 3.0 -> 3.1.

If I may advertize myself, you can download my compilations (DOS 16-bit:
Borland C++ 3.1; 32-bit: DJGPP 2.03) from
http://sta.c64.org/dosprg/unz600x.exe and
http://sta.c64.org/dosprg/zip300x.zip . I haven't extensively tested
them, though. (I'm using the 32-bit Windows version instead.)

Joe

[Rugxulo]

Hi,

Post by Joe Forster/STA

Post by Rugxulo
BTW, Unzip hasn't had a proper release since 2009 (AFAIK).

No, it hasn't.

I was halfway implying that FreeDOS wasn't necessarily incompetent
here, that it just hasn't changed much upstream since then. Hence
there's really nothing "new" to ship.

Post by Joe Forster/STA
Version 6.0 is supposed to be a major release, only with some
bug fixes (I also reported one and it got fixed) and preparation for another
major release, version 6.1 (or 7.0). Same with Zip 3.0 -> 3.1.

http://www.info-zip.org/UnZip.html#Future

Unfortunately, not much has changed in recent years (last Unzip beta
was in 2010). I guess 6.00 is "good enough" for most people already.

There was a ZIP 3.1d beta about a year ago (2015), but apparently that
also never got finalized (and isn't even on their SF.net site).

ftp://ftp.info-zip.org/pub/infozip/beta/

Post by Joe Forster/STA
Borland C++ 3.1; 32-bit: DJGPP 2.03) from
http://sta.c64.org/dosprg/unz600x.exe and
http://sta.c64.org/dosprg/zip300x.zip . I haven't extensively tested them,
though. (I'm using the 32-bit Windows version instead.)

But your binaries report the same 6.0 (2009) version. Is there a
practical difference? Are there additional bugfixes? Or did you just
want smaller size?

As much as I like smaller size, I think DJGPP 2.03p2 is dead and 2.05
should be preferred. It's not wrong to use it, of course (and I still
stick to my own 2.03p2-recompiled Unzip on my MetaDOS floppy that is
almost the exact same size as yours ... sadly not using UPX "lzma" due
to complaint), but I still wonder whether it's "better" or not. Didn't
2.05 fix some rare LFN issues? And of course it'd be bigger, but it'd
also have DJGPP-ish symlinks, which is sometimes nice. If you wanted
small size, symlink support would be where to look to trim the fat
(oops, forgot about printf [doprnt or whatever], ugh).

[Joe Forster/STA]

Hi guys,

Post by Rugxulo

Post by Joe Forster/STA

Post by Rugxulo
BTW, Unzip hasn't had a proper release since 2009 (AFAIK).

No, it hasn't.

I was halfway implying that FreeDOS wasn't necessarily incompetent
here, that it just hasn't changed much upstream since then. Hence
there's really nothing "new" to ship.

I know, there really is nothing we can do about it, I just confirmed the
"AFAIK".

Post by Rugxulo

Post by Joe Forster/STA
If I may advertize myself, you can download my compilations

But your binaries report the same 6.0 (2009) version. Is there a
practical difference? Are there additional bugfixes? Or did you just
want smaller size?

There is supposed to be no difference _at_all_ because I compiled them
from the original source. The point was that when I compiled them there
was no official binary package for DOS yet (and no DJGPP 2.05 either).
:-)

Joe