On 27 Jun 2023 Dave wrote:
> In article ,
>Richard Porter wrote:
>> On 26 Jun 2023 Chris Newman wrote:
>>> If I use !Fetch_NS I get version Dev C1# 5433.
>>> If I go through the Download latest NetSurf fro th browser itself I
>>> get version Dev C1# 5415.
>>> Would someone kindly expla
In message <5abaa82a53...@npost.uk>
Chris Newman wrote:
> Hi,
> If I use !Fetch_NS I get version Dev C1# 5433.
> If I go through the Download latest NetSurf fro th browser itself I get
> version Dev C1# 5415.
> Would someone kindly explain?
Perhaps the announcement by Michael Drak
In article , DB wrote:
> In message <5abaa82a53...@npost.uk> Chris Newman wrote:
> > Hi,
> > If I use !Fetch_NS I get version Dev C1# 5433.
> > If I go through the Download latest NetSurf fro th browser itself I
> > get version Dev C1# 5415.
> > Would someone kindly explain?
> Perhaps the
In article <5abb231a1b...@npost.uk>,
Chris Newman wrote:
> In article , DB wrote:
> > Perhaps the announcement by Michael Drake about a new toolchain
> > (https://www.riscosopen.org/forum/forums/1/topics/17766) is the
> > explanation.
> > Using Frank de Bruijn's latest version of Fetch_NS (2
In article <5abb26f5a7nets...@avisoft.f9.co.uk>,
Martin Avison wrote:
> The numbers will be muddled, as with any list of files the file names
> are the sequence, and the number is a minor part of the filename. It
> seems that the naming convention before the number has changed. There
> even se
