Rob Cakebread ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Hmmm. If I miss the midnight deadline I just use '-update yes' instead
> of '-future 0'. Everything else works just the same as when I use
> '-future 1'.
No disrespect to you or Gianni, but I'd like to make it clear just how
counter-intuitive this is.
I first mentioned my problems with PutFiles about a month ago, maybe a
bit more. I had a problem with symbolic links (fixed by a different
patch -- this is a genuine PutFiles bug), and I also had difficulty
understanding how to use it properly. I ended up writing version 1.0 of
the "how not to publish" guide (which I notice someone has updated; I've
learned a lot more since then, and I should probably update it myself).
I've asked about PutFiles on the IRC channel periodically for several
weeks. I've seen one or two other people asking also, and I've tried
to help when possible. Among the answers that people on IRC suggested
were:
* try without the "-future 1"
* try "-future 0" (or "-past 0") instead of "-future 1"
* (since I'm on Linux) use "timewarp" to change PutFiles' idea of
what time it is, so that the insert occurs "yesterday" from PutFiles'
point of view
(None of those worked for me. "timewarp" would have worked, except that
every insert that PutFiles tried to make failed with a "timed out"
error almost immediately; apparently the clock skew between the node
and the client can't be ignored.)
And finally, the one that actually worked for me:
* read and modify the PutFiles source code to make it act as I expect
Neither I, nor anyone who happened to be on #freenet at the time, came
up with the idea of using "-update yes". This makes me think that the
behavior of the software is unintuitive, and the documentation isn't
good enough to overcome that.
Now, I know my patch (which, I think, essentially forces the equivalent
of "-update yes" on the command line every time) isn't ideal. But I
honestly don't understand why PutFiles would *ever* want to *not* update
my site when I give the command to do so! Is there some functionality
that omitting both "-future 1" and "-update yes" gives me that I'm not
aware of? If not, then I think my patch (or a cleaned-up version of it,
naturally) should be the default behavior.
I know this message is long. It's not intended as a flame. Really. :-/
--
Greg Wooledge | "Truth belongs to everybody."
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | - The Red Hot Chili Peppers
http://wooledge.org/~greg/ |
PGP signature
