In message <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403171206570.29386-100000(a)troll.ecs.soton.ac.uk>
John-Mark Bell <jmb202(a)ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
Yes, so? I can't see the relevance, I'm afraid, given the
files are the
md5sum,CRC and file length says they're different. Why are you claiming
they're the same?
> Did you also know there is another version of SharedUlib out in
No, though it doesn't surprise me. It's what happens when people work on
software ;) Next you'll be complaining that there is more than one
of NetSurf "in the wild" ;)
Hardly the same thing. :-)
> But what I dislike is the total lack of anyone telling us that
> had changed.
Why should you need to know? Given that there is no functional difference
between the versions.
Well, perhaps I'd like to use a piece of code which is more error free?
Bizarre I know. but some of us would like to use bugfree software. ;-)
> I for one, have been using SharedUlib, 744 bytes in length. date
> Nov 2002, V1.02 (3 Nov 2002) (C) Peter Naulls, 2001".
> Would this version cause problems with Netsurf?
So why use a different one then?
I just don't understand.
> Surely it can't be good if the Netsurf developers and its
> different versions of library modules? :-)
They can't. NetSurf requires v1.02 or later. If you have v1.02 then
there's no issue.
May I ask that you take this elsewhere (csa.programmer or the gccsdk
as it's not relevant to NetSurf or its development.
But surely it is relevant as Netsurf uses it.
How can two modules with the same version number not act differently. How
can I trust a module that is slightly different from another and yet you
claim is not different?
Surely these 3 mods are different due to various changes inside the module?
Therefore if a user reports a bug in Netsurf, couldn't this bug be related
to what version they're using of a module as well as the Netsurf code?
Webmaster of the Acorn Cybervillage