Arnt Karlsen wrote:
On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 13:35:06 +0200, Boris wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
As the 0.9.4 release is still available via ftp from flightgear.org
I created a patch from 0.9.4final to 9.9.5final, the patch has a total
size of 23 MB (hey, still about only 1/4th of the actual download !)
and can be obtained at:
http://flitetutor.sourceforge.net/mlist/base-patches/fgfs-base-patch-9.9.4-FINAL__0.9.5.FINAL.tgz
..it's there allright, but you probably meant to _name_ it somewhat
closer to FG practice? ;-)
As long as I haven't yet received any feedback the name doesn't
matter at all -because we are still TESTING the whole thing - as
soon as we know definitely that these patches work as expected
I would collect the stuff in a separate place anyway, maybe even
ask Curtis to put these things on FlightGear.org to make it easily
available to everybody - actually, patches would also be an
advantage for FlightGear.org - regarding traffic.
Please report any problems, since this patch is based on the official
tarball from flightgear.org there should not be any CVS related
problems, anyway: make sure to backup your existing data !
BTW, I forgot to mention that after extraction of the patch archive
into your FlightGear folder you need to run a shell script in order to
remove obsolete files, depending on your OS/platform this is either
named "remove.sh" or "remove.bat".
..put this in a README.
There is no readme shipped with any base-package *patch*, except the
standard files that are included in the fgfs-base package, hence
an additional README included within the archive might even cause
a naming conflict.
The usage information is available on the tardiff webpage, Steven
still plans to change some things - amongst them also the names
of the standard scripts, which are likely to change to
"finish.bat" and "finish.sh" instead of the current remove.bat(/sh).
So, I would rather recommend mentioning such information on a separate
webpage where the patches will be made available in the end, possibly
even detailing the exact changes for each patch.
Another feature I am currently investigating would be exe-stubs
for tgz-archives under windows, that way the whole process would
be even made easier for windows users, as one could really attach
the patch archive to an extractor stub, which might then also
automatically execute the finish-script.
Actually it's pretty straight forward to attach exe stubs to
ZIP archives under windows, if something like that could be
realized for TGZ-archives it might really be an advantage.
Boris
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
