Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/1998/06/23/07:02:10
Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>
> On Tue, 23 Jun 1998, Vik Heyndrickx wrote:
>
> > I also suggested that archive files that are the first build remain in
> > their current format. After all, most archives have only 1 build.
>
> If anything, the file with no patchlevel in the name should point to the
> *latest* build (possibly using a symlink). Otherwise, naive users will
> inadvertently get buggy versions.
Does using symlinks yield some mirroring problems on simtelnet? I really
don't know, but since the /.alphas mirroring problems I wouldn't be
surprised. DJ?
And I can imagine that there are naive users that download the plain
file *and* the symlinked archive file, so... back to square one.
> But I seriously don't think it's a good idea to keep more than a single
> build of the same version.
Neither do I, but the whole point is that we need something different
than the date/time to distinguish between re-releases without breaking
the gnu version number equivalences.
Be honest, consider yourself a naive user (try hard, I know that may be
difficult ;-) and you see in the directory listing:
bnu291_b.zip
bnu291_b-rebuild1.zip
What file would you choose (you might have the opportunity to see the
file size and date).
That is under the assumption that bnu291_b.zip was preserved, but in
general I think removing it immediately would be better. And if the
docs/faq say that you have to download bnu?????.zip even a naive user
will know that it has to be bnu291b_-rebuild1.zip when bnu291_b.zip is
not present.
Another solution is to rename the older rebuilds, so that bnu291_b.zip
is the youngest release.
e.g.
bnu291_b-outdated1.zip ; the original build (originally named
bnu291_b.zip)
bnu291_b-outdated2.zip ; the second build (originally named
bnu291_b.zip)
bnu291_b.zip ; the current release
Of course the outdated releases can be removed if that would be
appropriate.
--
\ Vik /-_-_-_-_-_-_/
\___/ Heyndrickx /
\ /-_-_-_-_-_-_/ Knight in the Order of the Unsigned Types
- Raw text -