On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 03:01:30PM +0100, Jim Nagel wrote:
> I emailed Rob and Michael a copy of the skeleton !Boot and !System
> with meaningful datestamps, plus a little explanatory textfile, all
> contained in a zip file where datestamps should be safe from the
> zealous Linux autobuilder, we
In message <06fb86dd52@nails.abbeypress.net>
Jim Nagel wrote:
>> In article <890404dd52@nails.abbeypress.net>,
>>Jim Nagel wrote:
>>> ... manually put real datestamps on the various modules etc once and
>>> for all, and on the outer shell of the !Boot and !System supplied,
> In article <890404dd52@nails.abbeypress.net>,
>Jim Nagel wrote:
>> ... manually put real datestamps on the various modules etc once and
>> for all, and on the outer shell of the !Boot and !System supplied, and
>> then instruct the autobuilder not to willynilly change the datestamps.
>> I
In message <52dcd13453cvj...@waitrose.com>
Chris Newman wrote:
> In article <2348b5dc52@nails.abbeypress.net>,
> Jim Nagel wrote:
>
>
>
> > I suggest this simple textfile stating a "latest change" date because
> > it's tedious to go through the process of merging !Boot and !Sy
In article <890404dd52@nails.abbeypress.net>,
Jim Nagel wrote:
> An alternative approach (I have no idea of relative ease of
> implementation) would be to manually put real datestamps on the
> various modules etc once and for all, and on the outer shell of the
> !Boot and !System suppli
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012, at 02:04:08PM +0100, Graham Pickles wrote:
>> The above (textfile) seems to be a very straight forward and pragmatic
>> request, easy to implement and would be of assistance to many of us
An alternative approach (I have no idea of relative ease of
implementation) would be to
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 02:04:08PM +0100, Graham Pickles wrote:
> The above (textfile) seems to be a very straight forward and pragmatic
> request, easy to implement and would be of assistance to many of us
You know where to send patches :)
B.
In message
Jim Nagel wrote:
> Michael Drake wrote on 11 Oct:
>> We ship NetSurf with what it needs to run.
> Rob Kendrick wrote on 11 Oct:
>> we use the same build system and infrastructure to produce test
>> builds as we do release builds.
> Understood. But neither of these point
Michael Drake wrote on 11 Oct:
> We ship NetSurf with what it needs to run.
Rob Kendrick wrote on 11 Oct:
> we use the same build system and infrastructure to produce test
> builds as we do release builds.
Understood. But neither of these points prevent the inclusion of the
simple textfile I
In article <52dcee7e6et...@netsurf-browser.org>,
Michael Drake wrote:
> > Why not just take the additional resources out of the zip file
> > altogether and either make them available separately or provide links
> > to them elsewhere? Like Chris I only update !Boot and !System when I
> > need
In article <2348b5dc52@nails.abbeypress.net>,
Jim Nagel wrote:
> I suggest this simple textfile stating a "latest change" date because
> it's tedious to go through the process of merging !Boot and !System on
> three separate machines every time a new test build of Netsurf is
> installed,
In article ,
Richard Porter wrote:
> Why not just take the additional resources out of the zip file
> altogether and either make them available separately or provide links
> to them elsewhere? Like Chris I only update !Boot and !System when I
> need to - if !NetSurf complains or if I'm noti
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 10:58:37AM +0100, Richard Porter wrote:
> On 11 Oct 2012 Rob Kendrick wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 10:42:05AM +0100, Richard Porter wrote:
> >> Why not just take the additional resources out of the zip file
> >> altogether and either make them available separately
On 11 Oct 2012 Rob Kendrick wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 10:42:05AM +0100, Richard Porter wrote:
>> Why not just take the additional resources out of the zip file
>> altogether and either make them available separately or provide links
>> to them elsewhere? Like Chris I only update !Boot and
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 10:42:05AM +0100, Richard Porter wrote:
> Why not just take the additional resources out of the zip file
> altogether and either make them available separately or provide links
> to them elsewhere? Like Chris I only update !Boot and !System when I
> need to - if !NetSurf
On 11 Oct 2012 Chris Newman wrote:
> In article <2348b5dc52@nails.abbeypress.net>,
>Jim Nagel wrote:
>
>> I suggest this simple textfile stating a "latest change" date because
>> it's tedious to go through the process of merging !Boot and !System on
>> three separate machines every ti
In article <2348b5dc52@nails.abbeypress.net>,
Jim Nagel wrote:
> I suggest this simple textfile stating a "latest change" date because
> it's tedious to go through the process of merging !Boot and !System on
> three separate machines every time a new test build of Netsurf is
> installed,
Michael Drake wrote on 10 Oct:
> Development builds are available again from the NetSurf web site.
I wonder if it would be possible, please, to include a simple textfile
inside the zip that we download, stating the date when the contents of
!Boot and !System actually had the most recent change.
18 matches
Mail list logo
