On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 11:11:21 +0200, Boris wrote in message 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> Erik Hofman wrote:
> > Boris Koenig wrote:
> > 
> >> Because of this obvious advantage (particularly for users with slow
> >> dial-up connections, but also for those among us who have broadband
> >> access, but don't like to wait... ) we would now like to know what
> >> the rest of you thinks about adding those tardiff based patches as
> >an > OFFICIAL alternative *directly* to the FlightGear webpage as
> >option to> the  downloads section for FlightGear's most recent base
> >packages.
> > 
> > 
> > I find it a useful addition for modem users, but my only concern is
> > that it will increase the number complaints about something not
> > working while in fact their base package is somehow "corrupted".
> 
> While there were -so far- not any problems regarding something like
> that, I did also think about that possibility - that's why I would
> recommend to only release those patches that have been tested by
> running each created patch against the (old) base-package that it
> is supposed to patch, and directly compare the resulting (patched)
> folder structure with the one of the actual (original) base package,
> BEFORE publishing future patches.
> 
> While it would be additional work, it can surely be automatized using
> a simple shell script [1], but we would at least make sure that the 
> patch creates an identical folder structure.

..do further tests: md5sum all files in the official package and and the
patched package and compare those.  Also, those that fail this test 
may still work, but now "we" know they're different.

..and, there is also good old rsync.  ;-)

-- 
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-)
...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
  Scenarios always come in sets of three: 
  best case, worst case, and just in case.



_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d

Reply via email to