On Mar 21, 2005, at 4:13 PM, Dan Hollis wrote:
The real question is if xmame will reject it. People dont want to go
through the bother of writing a patch if it's going to be rejected on
ideological grounds. It would be nice to get an official xmame
position on
the matter before people start puttin
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005, Lawrence Gold wrote:
> On Mar 21, 2005, at 1:18 PM, Dan Hollis wrote:
> >> Probably. Even a clean patch would add a future maintainance burden
> >> we happily do without.
> > this is a real deterrent for anyone wanting to add any new features of any
> > kind to xmame, eg the f
On Mar 21, 2005, at 1:18 PM, Dan Hollis wrote:
Probably. Even a clean patch would add a future maintainance burden
we happily do without.
this is a real deterrent for anyone wanting to add any new features of
any
kind to xmame, eg the fully functional and working netmame rewrite i
have
lying aro
On Mar 21, 2005, at 2:49 PM, Dan Hollis wrote:
The netmame code was removed from the core for a reason (although I
don't know what that reason is).
because it was broken and nobody had bothered to fix it?
I believe it was unmaintained and broken. There was also some sentiment
that such a thing did
netmame is core too isnt it?
No.
so youre saying all core modifications will rejected?
No.
i'll keep it to myself and use it amongst friends instead.
Lol.
Phill
___
Xmame mailing list
Xmame@toybox.twisted.org.uk
http://toybox.twisted.org.uk/mailman/listin
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 13:49:44 -0800 (PST), Dan Hollis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> because this netmame code works? but since its core, it would be rejected,
> shrug shoulders and sigh? i'll keep it to myself and use it amongst
> friends instead.
It's possible Lawrence can maintain it and patch the
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005, Christopher Stone wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 13:27:14 -0800 (PST), Dan Hollis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > netmame is core too isnt it?
> > so youre saying all core modifications will rejected?
> Are you saying you have a netmame core rewrite and you are not sure if
> it
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 13:27:14 -0800 (PST), Dan Hollis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> netmame is core too isnt it?
>
> so youre saying all core modifications will rejected?
Are you saying you have a netmame core rewrite and you are not sure if
it has any core code?
The netmame code was removed from
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005, Christopher Stone wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 12:18:11 -0800 (PST), Dan Hollis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > this is a real deterrent for anyone wanting to add any new features of any
> > kind to xmame, eg the fully functional and working netmame rewrite i have
> > lying a
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 12:18:11 -0800 (PST), Dan Hollis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> this is a real deterrent for anyone wanting to add any new features of any
> kind to xmame, eg the fully functional and working netmame rewrite i have
> lying around.
AFAIK the zip stuff is in the core and not in the
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005, Olivier Galibert wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 12:50:24PM -0700, mushroom blue wrote:
> > but if someone whipped up support, and submitted a patch, would it be
> > turned away?
> Probably. Even a clean patch would add a future maintainance burden
> we happily do without.
t
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 12:50:24PM -0700, mushroom blue wrote:
> but if someone whipped up support, and submitted a patch, would it be
> turned away?
Probably. Even a clean patch would add a future maintainance burden
we happily do without.
OG.
___
On Saturday 19 Mar 2005 20:12, Craig Servin wrote:
> So there is a name for us :-)
>
> Seriously, once you start it's hard to not have it turn into an obsession.
Nah, I "catch 'em all" because on a fast connection just grabbing the whole
set over bittorrent is the easiest way to get the 20 or so
So there is a name for us :-)
Seriously, once you start it's hard to not have it turn into an obsession.
On Saturday 19 March 2005 02:07 pm, Lawrence Gold wrote:
> Christopher Stone wrote:
> > Just out of curiosity, what is a pokerom? :)
>
> Think Pokemon: "Gotta catch 'em all!"
>
>
Christopher Stone wrote:
Just out of curiosity, what is a pokerom? :)
Think Pokemon: "Gotta catch 'em all!"
___
Xmame mailing list
Xmame@toybox.twisted.org.uk
http://toybox.twisted.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/xmame
Just out of curiosity, what is a pokerom? :)
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 12:50:24 -0700, mushroom blue
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-03-18 at 21:33 +0100, Olivier Galibert wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 12:08:03PM -0800, Dan Hollis wrote:
> > > Has anyone revisited the subject of 7-zip su
On Fri, 2005-03-18 at 21:33 +0100, Olivier Galibert wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 12:08:03PM -0800, Dan Hollis wrote:
> > Has anyone revisited the subject of 7-zip support yet?
>
> Only the pokeroms care. Fuck 'em.
>
> OG.
but if someone whipped up support, and submitted a patch, would it
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 12:08:03PM -0800, Dan Hollis wrote:
> Has anyone revisited the subject of 7-zip support yet?
Only the pokeroms care. Fuck 'em.
OG.
___
Xmame mailing list
Xmame@toybox.twisted.org.uk
http://toybox.twisted.org.uk/mailman/listin
Has anyone revisited the subject of 7-zip support yet?
The format seems to have been stabilized for some years now, and it really
does get a _lot_ better compression than pkzip.
compression tests on 25gb:
25469869uncompressed
11572525info-zip 2.3 "-9"
112265077zip 4.14 beta "-tzip -
19 matches
Mail list logo
