* Anonymous via Panta Rhei <anonymous at panta-rhei.eu.org> [2006-08-30 05:01:55]:
> On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 07:25:16 -0400, you wrote: > > > > On Wednesday 23 August 2006 15:19, Matthew Toseland wrote: > > > > > - Don't start the updater if the wrapper is broken > > > > I have problems with this one. I do not run the wrapper - I do want > > freenet to > > download new stable versions and then quit. > > I have the java command that starts freenet in a loop and this suffices to > > update > > freenet with much of the wrapper's complexity. > > It worked fine. > > > > I would not object to an 'are you sure' message but to block the operation > > is not > > reasonable. Without the wrapper its reasonable > > for someone to want freenet to download new jars and prep them for > > execution when the > > user restarts. > > > > Why do we _need_ this reduced flexibility? > > > A lack of response to your question I note with disdain > Hmmm, you must have missed something in the thread :) http://archives.freenetproject.org/message/20060823.191916.b8a08d04.en.html NextGen$
