Hi! > Why should we put all packages versions on the update server?
Actually I would not - I would put the package on ibiblio and only let the update server know about the ibiblio URL. And as more (!) users will update manually than with the updater, it is pretty helpful to have ibiblio filenames which do contain the full version number and full package name, even though that will give many files names longer than 8+3. You can use the WGET -O option to set a fixed short output file name for what the updater will store on harddisk :-). > I thought rather of an "unique" update server... Would make it more easy to look at the wrong place and get the not-newest version, so I think the update server should be more some "place for machine readable version info" and not a "place for not human readably named zip files" ;-)). > I would rather put all packages into one directory I remember that this made the 1.0 "download any package from 1.0" directory very user unfriendly. It contains way too many files, with way too short names, so many users got headaches when trying to download "diskcopy of 1.0" or similar... Plus it did not tell them whether the 1.0 version or the version in, say, the diskcopy directory of ibiblio was newer. I suggest the solution to have all versions of diskcopy only in the diskcopy directory, and name them "diskcopy-0815x.zip" or similar instead of "dkcp815x.zip" or "dskcpyx.zip" or similar ;-). Eric ------------------------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 _______________________________________________ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
