On Thursday 14 June 2001 04:21 pm, you wrote:
> 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.
Well, I don't think there is anything intuitive about the whole smorgashborg
of options you have to use, but hey, you have to tell PutFiles quite a few
things. Actually I had to mail GJ and ask why -future 0 stopped working.
It did work before they changed the way freenet_insert works and I think
he was just trying to keep in sync with it (from his HOWTO: PutFiles supports
the standard freenet_insert DBR command line options -- -update, -increment,
-baseline, -future, -past).
If you read the Publishing Content page on the Freenet project page,
it does tell you to use '-update yes' for today and '-future 1' for tommorow.
Check out the examples in sections 4 and 5.
http://freenet.sourceforge.net/index.php?page=content
A lot of good it does you now }:^)
> 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.
No, you have to use either '-update yes' or '-future n' (or -past if you are
a wierdo). But yeah, you're right, I think GJ's HOWTO should mention the
'-update yes' to mean 'today'.
> I know this message is long. It's not intended as a flame. Really. :-/
----------------------------------------
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; charset="us-ascii";
name="Attachment: 1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description:
----------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Chat mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
