On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, Maarten ter Huurne wrote:
> > There should be only ONE official package version and this meant to be the
> > best one. More than one version of the package for the same game will only
> > bring confusion.
>
> I'll have to think about that. Is seems a bit too centralized for my taste,
> but there are some advantages to it.
I agree with Daniel, at least some of the work must be
centralized. What stops an user from creating an unofficial "padven"
package, with the same contents of the official "penadv"? If the GameID
distribution is centralized, then perhaps some other things could be
centralized also, now we should discuss which of them.
Having the game database centralized has another advantage: we
could build a kind of MSX-Napster. The central database would not store
any actual .msx file, but it could store URLs from sites where the
packages could be download. Another advantage of this napster-like
database is the updating of the .msx archives. If there's a new version
available (the date ID can be used for this purpose), the msx-napster can
warn the user or start the new download.
It is worth to note that the "centralizing" doesn't need to be
done by a single person, we could make an "msxformat-l" mailing list for
this purpose, and even the servers could be replicated in many sites.
I must tell you that my head hurts with the incredible amount of
information we discussed. I think it's time to stop discussing new ideas
and write a document with the features that already have been approved
(such as the generic mapper system). After the document is written, we can
go back to the new ideas.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ricardo Bittencourt http://www.lsi.usp.br/~ricardo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] "Ricardo is subtle, but malicious he is not"
------ Uniao contra o forward - crie suas proprias piadas ------
--
For info, see http://www.stack.nl/~wynke/MSX/listinfo.html
