Thomas Willhalm wrote:
> Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
>> In article <3e48f6f1@news.povray.org> , Thomas Willhalm
>> <tho### [at] uni-konstanzde>  wrote:
>> 
>> There are no changes to the code that are not Unix specific.  Labeling
>> the code as you suggest would only cause confusion.
> 
> Are you ignoring our point on purpose? We want _version_numbers_ in the
> _filename_. The archive for 3.5 with source code for unix is called
> povuni_s.tgz, the archive for 3.1g with source code for unix is called
> povuni_s.tgz, and the archive for 3.0 with source code for unix is called
> povuni_s.tgz. If you don't believe me, check it yourself on
> ftp.povray.org.
> 
Well, that was not what I wanted to point out. Becuase the directory 
these files are in identifies them. However, it is generally a good 
idea to increase subversion or patchlevel numbers each time the 
content of a file changes. Relaying on the modification time stamp 
is a bit problematic and forces you to know which _date_ you last 
updated. 

I'm quite sure that NOT using such version numbers causes more confusion 
than using them (at least as symlink). 
OTOH I was again not aware that you actually have different source code 
packages for different platforms (which is quite uncommon to me). 

So, do what you think is best :)

However, if bandwidth is a problem for POVRay people, supplying 
pachtes between different UNIX source code versions could help. 
(Because I can either dl a patch at 4.5 kb/sec or dl complete POVRay 
on the university account and create my own patch there...)
This, however, would require subversion/patchlevel numbers. 

Wolfgang

Post a reply to this message