Re: [Flightgear-devel] FG-webpage addition (tardiff created base-package patches)
Boris Koenig wrote: But there's another thing in this context - it's about the VERSION file in $FG_ROOT/data not containing pre-release tags, I think Jim Wilson mentioned a couple of weeks ago that this is supposed to be like that, this however causes a problem for those users who want to apply a patch for their corresponding fgfs-base version: in order to make the process really idiot-proof it would be very helpful if you guys could either decide whether to add pre-release tags to the version file I think there have been versions around where the version number in the base package was actually something like 0.9.4pre2 Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FG-webpage addition (tardiff created base-package patches)
Erik Hofman wrote: Boris Koenig wrote: But there's another thing in this context - it's about the VERSION file in $FG_ROOT/data not containing pre-release tags, I think Jim Wilson mentioned a couple of weeks ago that this is supposed to be like that, this however causes a problem for those users who want to apply a patch for their corresponding fgfs-base version: in order to make the process really idiot-proof it would be very helpful if you guys could either decide whether to add pre-release tags to the version file I think there have been versions around where the version number in the base package was actually something like 0.9.4pre2 Maybe, I don't know - it's just that some general convention would be useful, particularly regarding the patch applying howto for tardiff: http://tardiff.sourceforge.net/applying-patches.html#tardiff-apply So, if you say that future VERSION files will also specify whether a particularly package is a PRE-release, it would already be sufficient. - Boris ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FG-webpage addition (tardiff created base-package patches)
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. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FG-webpage addition (tardiff created base-package patches)
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. So, only those patches would be released. Boris [1]: patches could be checked for their validity by using the already created checksums of the original archive, possibly using the finish shell script. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FG-webpage addition (tardiff created base-package patches)
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
