Jonathan Gordon wrote:
can he lng's be moved to a seperate part of the dowload page? (have a
drop list with the available languages, and another for the targets,
then a button and it will upload the correct file to u..?)
That would make it a pain for the user, having to download both the
binar
another reason to move lng and wps out of the zip is because even if
ppl do use a different language from english.. they would only use one
other file.. so y put them all in the zip.. sort of the same for
wps... and fonts.
can he lng's be moved to a seperate part of the dowload page? (have a
drop
I did some quick and dirty compression testing today on an H120 build
zip (size is in kbyte, rounded to the nearest 4k):
(original) rockbox.zip2046
(gzip -9) rockbox.tar.gz 1794 (12%)
(bzip2)rockbox.tar.bz21802 (12%)
(p7zip)rockbox.tar.7z 1297 (37%)
(rzip -9) rockboz.
Hi, RaeNye, great to hear you was/are working on dual-bootloader for X5.Please join us on Rockbox IRC for talk about this with LinusN and Bagder...I'll check this night on my X5 if that's works well...(working atm).
Thanks for your works.2006/5/4, Flyspray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
The following task ha
On Thu, 4 May 2006, Jonathan Gordon wrote:
langs arnt device dependant... arnt they just text files?
.lng files _are_ target dependent since we added langv2 support.
And in repsonse to the previous mail: we already only include WPSes/themes in
packages that are suitable for the particular ta
langs arnt device dependant... arnt they just text files?
On 04/05/06, Manuel Dejonghe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/4/06, bk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It seems to me the smarter solution would be to separate the binary &
> lang components from the WPS/themes/fonts parts (as was discussed),
On 5/4/06, bk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It seems to me the smarter solution would be to separate the binary &
lang components from the WPS/themes/fonts parts (as was discussed),
rather than just switching to 7z.
BTW: since bins and langs are device-dependant and packaged like this,
the wps cou
On Thu, 2006-05-04 at 07:38 +0200, Daniel Stenberg wrote:
> Yeps. In my quick and naive zip/7zip compression tests I did a number of
> months ago, the typical gain for a rockbox.zip was in fact more than 30%.
Since rockbox.zip tends to be pretty small I imagine it's skewing the
results a bit (30
