On Tue, 23 Jan 2001 23:38:57 +0000, Maarten ter Huurne wrote:
>I'm starting to understand what you're saying. Basically, you want a package
>manager for .msx files, right? It can inform the user of a more recent
>version of a package and help the user download it.
Sort of... (^=
>I think we can add support for this in the standard, without actually making
>it a requirement of the standard. So we would be allowing a centralized
>packaging system without forcing its use upon emulators using .msx files.
>The info file would include identification of the packager and the package
>version. For example:
>GameID=penadv
>Packager=mth
>PackageID=2001-01-23
>But I'm not sure we need to specify an official packager in the standard. On
>the net, "official" is something that evolves, rather than being appointed.
This is why it must have a number, so this number may increase! (^=
>For example, when the web just started, Mosaic was the browser nearly
>everyone used. Later that became Netscape. And currently IE is used by a vast
>majority of people. But there was never an official browser.
Hey, come on. A package for a game is something VERY different from
a browser. It's just more like HTML standard, which has a numbering
information.
>In the MSX world, The Ultimate MSX FAQ is referred to as "the MSX FAQ",
>because it's the largest and best maintained FAQ today. But it has earned
>that reputation, rather than being appointed.
>Is this approach acceptable to you?
I understand, but I'm not thinking on a MSX Database with a "King" controling
it, and so on. I'm thinking on a database that everyone helps to bring up-to-date.
Having such database, instead of creating your own "Penguin Adventure Distribution",
you will work on improving the current Penguin Adventure INI on the database...
And if the comunity thinks your changes are good, they will be implemented on the
"official" version, just like happens with any open software.
>About the PackageID: I really prefer to use dates rather than a single
>number. The difference is 9 bytes per game, so that's 9K for 1000 games. I
>think that's an acceptable overhead.
The problem with dates and with names is: Which is the best:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
PackageID=2000-12-23
or
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
PackageID=2001-01-23
???
I really don't know! How an automated program will verify that?
We can have this on this way:
; Original [EMAIL PROTECTED]
; Original PackageDate=2000-12-23
PackageID=34
and
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
PackageDate=2001-01-23
The second one without PackageID. This would mean that the second
one is on beta-test, not aproved by comunity or something like that.
So, the one with a PackageID is clearly a better choice for unexperienced
users. If changes proposed by [EMAIL PROTECTED] in 2001-01-23 are
accepted by comunity, the two packages will be mixed into:
; Original [EMAIL PROTECTED]
; Original PackageDate=2000-12-23
; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
; PackageDate=2001-01-23
PackageID=35
And thats it. The names are preserved in the package and we have
a new PackageID (which is the version). Now the program will know
that this new version 35 is "better" than previous one.
Note, the emulator still run the one with PackageID=34 and even
that without PackageID flag... but if the user ask to emulator
verify the version of its package, the emulator will answer that
there is a new one.
And we may create a mail list where we can vote to decide if a
new version of INI is or not aproved. Of course, anyone can vote.
Also, the FIRST version for a new .MSX file will always be accepted
without any vote (there is no reason because even a broken package
is better than none...!)
It'll be some work, but it's also the chance to make the MSX
packages better and better.
----- AbraçOS/2, Daniel Caetano ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
/| | | |\
\| ___ |/ OS/2: http://www.quasarbbs.com/daniel/
\/ ----- \/ MSX: http://www.fudeba.cjb.net/
| | Drawings: http://www.djgallery.tsx.org/
-- -- ...Programming to solve the mistery of life!
--
For info, see http://www.stack.nl/~wynke/MSX/listinfo.html
