Re: [freenet-support] Nearly no content left with correct compression?

2008-10-29 Thread Luke771
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 19:27:43 +0100 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: bqz69 wrote: You must upgrade to 1166, which was released yesterday. *** [top posting corrected] I have. With the results shown below... so I downgraded again to 1165+minors. Now re-upgrade again or your

Re: [freenet-support] Nearly no content left with correct compression?

2008-10-29 Thread Luke771
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 19:28:38 +0100 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Great! However I thought it would be finished before release of 1166, but so I'll wait for 1167+ or fixed trunk. Matthew Toseland wrote: It's a bug. It will be fixed before we release the code. Great! However I

Re: [freenet-support] Nearly no content left with correct compression?

2008-10-29 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1166 has already been released, so using trunk after 1166 got out essentially is 1166+minors Maybe I am wrong here? Matthew Toseland wrote: On Tuesday 28 October 2008 18:27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have. With the results shown below... so I downgraded again to 1165+minors.

[freenet-support] Another hideous mistake :|

2008-10-29 Thread Matthew Toseland
Some nodes will have updated to 1166 over the auto-update-over-Freenet mechanism only to stop working, with errors like "java.lang.UnsupportedClassVersionError". I inserted the 1166 update built with java 1.6. I have fixed the build script so this doesn't happen again (we specified source but

[freenet-support] Nearly no content left with correct compression?

2008-10-29 Thread Matthew Toseland
bject=unsubscribe > > > > > ___ > Support mailing list > Support at freenetproject.org > http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support > Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support > Or mailto:support-request at freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe > > -- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 827 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/support/attachments/20081029/fbe7b98a/attachment.pgp>

[freenet-support] Nearly no content left with correct compression?

2008-10-29 Thread Matthew Toseland
freenetproject.org > >> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support > >> Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support > >> Or mailto:support-request at freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe > ___ > Support mailing list > Support at freenetproject.org > http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support > Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support > Or mailto:support-request at freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe > > -- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 827 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/support/attachments/20081029/6f870de2/attachment.pgp>

[freenet-support] Nearly no content left with correct compression?

2008-10-29 Thread Luke771
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 19:27:43 +0100 "freenetwork at web.de" wrote: > > bqz69 wrote: > > You must upgrade to 1166, which was released yesterday. > > *** > > [top posting corrected] > I have. With the results shown below... so I downgraded again to > 1165+minors. Now re-upgrade again or your

[freenet-support] Nearly no content left with correct compression?

2008-10-29 Thread Luke771
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 19:28:38 +0100 "freenetwork at web.de" wrote: > Great! However I thought it would be finished before release of 1166, > but so I'll wait for 1167+ or fixed trunk. > > Matthew Toseland wrote: > > It's a bug. It will be fixed before we release the code. > Great! However I

[freenet-support] Nearly no content left with correct compression?

2008-10-29 Thread freenetw...@web.de
1166 has already been released, so using trunk after 1166 got out essentially is "1166+minors" Maybe I am wrong here? Matthew Toseland wrote: > On Tuesday 28 October 2008 18:27, freenetwork at web.de wrote: > >> I have. With the results shown below... so I downgraded again to >>