1:58 p.m.
within the Netsurf 2.0 zipfile download, the datestamps on all the
internal files have been lost -- everything is stamped 2009-04-22
16:42 (give or take a few seconds).
is that on purpose or a glitch?
this was not so in previous downloads. datestamps usefully indicated
whether items such as Iconv and SharedULib had changed since my last
Netsurf download, ie, whether it's necessary to go through the process
of updating Boot and System.
--
>> no need to reply my entire message back to me ;=]
Jim
Nagel www.archivemag.co.uk
Abbey Press 32 Norbins Rd (01458) 83 3603
Glastonbury BA6 9JG pocket 0797 415 3861
2:39 p.m.
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 19:58:41 +0100
Jim Nagel <netsurf(a)abbeypress.co.uk> wrote:
within the Netsurf 2.0 zipfile download, the datestamps on all the
internal files have been lost -- everything is stamped 2009-04-22
16:42 (give or take a few seconds).
is that on purpose or a glitch?
It is a side effect of how the autobuilder in release mode works, if I
recall. There is nothing to fear, and you certainly shouldn't use
dates to calculate merging; you should always use a whole NetSurf as
you have obtained it.
B.
1:17 a.m.
In article <20090427203901.5f7f628a(a)trite.i.flarn.net.i.flarn.net>,
Rob Kendrick <rjek(a)netsurf-browser.org> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 19:58:41 +0100
Jim Nagel <netsurf(a)abbeypress.co.uk> wrote:
> within the Netsurf 2.0 zipfile download, the datestamps on all
the
> internal files have been lost -- everything is stamped 2009-04-22
> 16:42 (give or take a few seconds).
>
> is that on purpose or a glitch?
It is a side effect of how the autobuilder in release mode works, if
I
recall. There is nothing to fear, and you certainly shouldn't use
dates to calculate merging; you should always use a whole NetSurf as
you have obtained it.
B.
Bob, is it also recommended to install all the files that come with a
recent build, as you would with a new version. The former I've not
usually done, as I seem to remember someone saying it was not required
with builds to a version.
Thanks to all involved with the new version.
There is one odditly thats been in place since around the version one
introduction, where it wont resolve some pages, reporting 'The document
sent by the server is empty' (i've posted JMB direct on this with logs).
Phil
--
philco(a)heter.co.uk
2:22 a.m.
On 28 Apr 2009 Phil wrote:
In article
<20090427203901.5f7f628a(a)trite.i.flarn.net.i.flarn.net>,
Rob Kendrick <rjek(a)netsurf-browser.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 19:58:41 +0100
> Jim Nagel <netsurf(a)abbeypress.co.uk> wrote:
>> within the Netsurf 2.0 zipfile download, the datestamps on
all the
>> internal files have been lost -- everything is stamped 2009-04-22
>> 16:42 (give or take a few seconds).
>>
>> is that on purpose or a glitch?
> It is a side effect of how the autobuilder in release mode works,
...
> B.
Bob, is it also recommended to install all the files that come with
a
recent build, as you would with a new version. ...
Yes, but you don't need to do the !Boot and !System updates every
time. I work on the basis that if an updated module is required it
will be RMEnsured in the !Run file.
--
_
|_|. _ Richard Porter http://www.minijem.plus.com/
|\_||_ mailto:ricp@minijem.plus.com
Disclaimer: Please imagine about 50 lines of pointless clutter.
2:33 a.m.
In article <c4acf55250.ricp(a)user.minijem.plus.com>,
Richard Porter <ricp(a)minijem.plus.com> wrote:
On 28 Apr 2009 Phil wrote:
> In article
<20090427203901.5f7f628a(a)trite.i.flarn.net.i.flarn.net>,
> Rob Kendrick <rjek(a)netsurf-browser.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 19:58:41 +0100
>> Jim Nagel <netsurf(a)abbeypress.co.uk> wrote:
>>> within the Netsurf 2.0 zipfile download, the datestamps
on all the
>>> internal files have been lost -- everything is stamped 2009-04-22
>>> 16:42 (give or take a few seconds).
>>>
>>> is that on purpose or a glitch?
>> It is a side effect of how the autobuilder in release mode
works, ...
>> B.
> Bob, is it also recommended to install all the files that come
with a
> recent build, as you would with a new version. ...
Yes, but you don't need to do the !Boot and !System updates every
time. I work on the basis that if an updated module is required it
will be RMEnsured in the !Run file.
Thanks Richard. Ah I'm ok then, as except for new builds, I dont do the
!Boot and !System, but I do replace the !Netsurf application.
Thanks
Phil
--
philco(a)heter.co.uk
3:39 a.m.
On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 07:17:59 +0100
Phil <philco(a)heter.co.uk> wrote:
Bob, is it also recommended to install all the files that come with
a
recent build, as you would with a new version. The former I've not
usually done, as I seem to remember someone saying it was not required
with builds to a version.
As Richard said, if a newer version of a module or resource shipped in
our !Boot and !System patches is needed, NetSurf will complain about
them not being available. But it doesn't hurt to do it anyway, either.
B.
5079
days inactive
5080
days old
netsurf-users@netsurf-browser.org
5 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Jim Nagel -
Phil -
Richard Porter -
Rob Kendrick