Thorsten Froehlich wrote:

> In article <3e48f6f1@news.povray.org> , Thomas Willhalm
> <tho### [at] uni-konstanzde>  wrote:
> 
>> I'm sorry, but I have to agree with Wolfgang. A version number in the
>> file name would make sense. It's hard to guess, whether povuni_s.tgz
>> contains the sources for 3.1, 3.5, 3.5b, 3.6, or whatever. Of course,
>> if there is no difference in the source code between 3.5a and 3.5b,
>> it would be povuni_s-3.5.tgz. Different files should get different
>> (recognizable) names.
> 
> 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.

I agree with you that one should use the same name if two archives contain 
the same code. However, I'm sure that this is not the case for the source
code of povray 3.0 and povray 3.5 (for any platform).

Thomas

Post a reply to this message