Frederik Ramm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi, > > Matthias Julius wrote: >> What is much more likely is that users are tampering with either >> version.txt or some source files. > > Is there some kind of moral obligation to use the newest client code and > to not "tamper" with the code? Why not DRM it outright and distribute > only compiled binaries if that's what you want ;-)
Hmmm, didn't think about that one myself ... Maybe "tamper" sounded a bit too negative. We certainly can not enforce that people run our blessed client code. But, what I think is desirable is that people don't run buggy clients and always use current styles. To achieve that the auto_update mechanism was implemented. I am not totally happy with it neither. Do you have a better idea? > Of course we don't want people running old software and ruining our > efforts, but I had thought that the simple version check on upload was > sufficient - along, perhaps, with an *optional* auto-update for those > who have the thing running in a sandbox. But you're talking as if > allowing the software to update itself would be some sort of basic > requirement for the client software... Maybe it would be enough if the client only auto-updates the osmarender styles. And the server could refuse assigning jobs to and accept uploads from client versions that are known buggy. Matthias _______________________________________________ Tilesathome mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tilesathome
