You are here

DOSBox Portable - PortableApps.com Format v3.0 structure ?

7 posts / 0 new
Last post
sst
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 2 months ago
Joined: 2009-01-23 04:52
DOSBox Portable - PortableApps.com Format v3.0 structure ?

DOSBox Portable

Did i can re-compile the launcher and with PortableApps.com Format v3.0 structure ?

[Format]
Type=PortableApps.comFormat
Version=2.0

---

Latest launcher compiler did not complete, with PortableApps.com Format v2.0 structure.

John T. Haller
John T. Haller's picture
Offline
Last seen: 12 hours 42 min ago
AdminDeveloperModeratorTranslator
Joined: 2005-11-28 22:21
Not PAL

It's not PAL, it's a custom launcher with source in Other\Source. Why do you want to recompile it anyway?

Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!

sst
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 2 months ago
Joined: 2009-01-23 04:52
Then, ... why not PAL ???

Then, ... why not PAL ???

Did "John T. Haller" or else, can made a v3.x PAL version, of DOSBox Portable ?

At my side i try to made a Portable v3.x PAL version of "ykhwongs dosbox svn daum", build.

But a parameter, inside a portable Apps, is complicated to me to be made, ...

dosbox.exe -conf "../../Data/settings/dosbox.conf"

John T. Haller
John T. Haller's picture
Offline
Last seen: 12 hours 42 min ago
AdminDeveloperModeratorTranslator
Joined: 2005-11-28 22:21
Old App

This app pre-dated PAL and was never updated. There's no real need to update the launcher as it works just fine. We provide the tools in NSIS Portable Unicode to be able to recompile it yourself if you want.

Plus, there is no PAL 3.0, it's PAL 2.2.

Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!

sst
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 2 months ago
Joined: 2009-01-23 04:52
Ok, ... it's PortableApps.com Format v3.0

Ok, ... it's PortableApps.com Format v3.0

Before
[Format]
Type=PortableApps.comFormat
Version=2.0

After
[Format]
Type=PortableApps.comFormat
Version=3.0

---
i know that DosBox Portable, dont follow the "PortableApps.com Format v3.0 structure".

Did it's easy to made DosBox Portable, with "PortableApps.com Format v3.0 structure" ?

John T. Haller
John T. Haller's picture
Offline
Last seen: 12 hours 42 min ago
AdminDeveloperModeratorTranslator
Joined: 2005-11-28 22:21
No Difference

For practical purposes, there's no difference between the two as DOSBox doesn't have file associations anyway. The only different is that 2.0 would become a 3.0. Why are you even worried about that?

Note that PAL use is NOT required for PAF 3.0. See Firefox, Thunderbird, SeaMonkey, Chrome, etc... none of which use PAL, all of which are PAF 3.0.

Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!

sst
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 2 months ago
Joined: 2009-01-23 04:52
Ok, ... i understand, ...

Ok, ... i understand, ...

i have made the Portable "ykhwongs dosbox svn daum", build, with support latest launcher and latest format structure.

For the moment, i have not ask to the programmor, if a protable version of "ykhwongs dosbox svn daum", can be public, ...

i will think to made it public, ... if the programmor whant a portable version.

i hope it not made like the Mame Portable version. i hope that public version of "ykhwongs dosbox svn daum" fork of DosBox, will be 100% legal.

ok at my side, case close for trying to update DosBox Portable.

Log in or register to post comments