Hi, > Gesendet: Sonntag, 26. Juli 2015 um 05:24 Uhr > Von: "Michael T. Pope" <mp...@computer.org> > An: "FreeCol Developers" <freecol-developers@lists.sourceforge.net> > Betreff: Re: [Freecol-developers] Installer fail > > On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 18:12:35 +0200 > win...@genial.ms wrote: > > Can you recompile it now and stuff it into Dropbox or just try emailing me > > the installer you produced so I can test it (I think my mailbox is large > > enough)? > > I can do better now, as freecol.org is fully back online. I did a trial > "ant dist" and ran bin/release.sh with the default release tag of the day, > which was a good test. There is some URL weirdness still, which I am > looking into, but I found the upload at: > > https://sourceforge.net/projects/freecol/files/freecol/freecol-git-20150726/ > > Note that the triple dot fix is not present in this build. >
SF does not want to show me the files. :( > >>[src.zip] > Its weird. I do not understand what is intended for .src.zip at all. > To create the source directory for the zip, build.xml says: > > excludes="dist/**,data/**,jars/**,www.freecol.org/**,nbproject/**,unused/**" > > which looks sensible, and in the trial build it appears to have > successfully dropped the new directories we wanted to exclude. However > later on in build.xml when the zip is actually built, the base tree is > included as well, which is why the trial build above contains > data/\*,jars/\*. > I'll take another look at the build.xml and see if I can fix the other ant target. > So what is the purpose of the src.zip anyway? If we want people to be > able to use it to build a working copy of freecol (perhaps they are not > keen to use git) then they will need data/\* and jars/\*, and perhaps the > project files. However then src.zip is almost a complete superset of the > non-source zip (FreeCol.jar would be the exception). We need to decide > (and document!) what the rationale is. > > Meanwhile I have a patch underway to implement what is decided. > Well, the purpose is complying with the GPL. As I understood it a while ago (and I dont want to reread the lawyer-speak now), it got that source provision, where you have to provide exactly the source you used for building, in exactly the same way, exactly where the binary is, to prevent users from having to jump through hoops to get it and allow them to easily compare/verify/modify. I find it somewhat annoying and would prefer a more relaxed provision, but whatever. > OK. I am relieved the translations are intact. Correct me if am wrong, > but that sounds like we are now in slightly better shape on windows than > for 0.11.3? > Slightly better than 11.3 probably. I just don't remember if the installer crash in 11.2 was fixed before or after 11.3. > >>[desktop icon] > > I changed it from 32x32 to 64x64 while updating the jsmooth files, but it > > still looks > > as before after running the installer, maybe a 48x48 icon look nicer, but I > > don't > > feel like creating one now. > > Its your call. I suspect that will be a "can not please everyone" case. > Well, I can not change it. Its .ico files, which IIRC are basically .bmp (which is another bad MS format in a multitude of different versions), but not really, as they support transparency and contain special restrictions on allowed sizes or whatever, and they can be displayed easily, but for writing you need a special ico editor. Then the icons can be somehow as resources added to .exe files, even multiple in multiple sizes, but jsmooth does not allow it. Windows does the intelligent thing and resizes the best available icon, but it looks blocky. Maybe some volunteer produces 48x48 and 16x16 or whatever someday so we can try to include them with a better installer we might have until then. Greetings, wintertime ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Freecol-developers mailing list Freecol-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freecol-developers
