Re: [Celestia-developers] Celestia 1.3.2 update
Real-time 3D visualization of space
Status: Beta
Brought to you by:
cjlaurel
From: Selden E B. Jr <se...@le...> - 2004-08-27 21:05:12
|
Pat, You wrote > I don't know if it's practical to start uploading 5 files for every > distribution to the downloads section of the site. Why do you have this opinion? > This is probably something we should consider. > For example, I'd prefer if we had a page that just gives instructions > for where to get files. In the case of the Debian packages I'm making, > it will be an apt-source, literally one line of information. My personal opinion is that SourceForge needs to be the official source of Celestia distribution kits (except for the various "prerelease" versions). While there's nothing wrong with specialized versions being distributed by other sites, I think there needs to be one place where users know they can get an unadulterated and "officially supported" copy. There's no way to know what might have been done to versions that are available on other servers. > For RedHat users it could be a yum source, if anyone makes packages. > Gentoo instructions are literally "emerge celestia". > But having 5 files each for Mandrake, SuSe, Debian, and maybe Fedora > won't be practical for the official release site. Why? I really don't understand. It shouldn't be a bandwidth issue: the kits don't get downloaded from Shatters.net but from SourceForge's international network of mirror sites. SourceForge certainly has plenty of storage space, too. It shouldn't be an organizational issue: SF provides URLs that "show only this release", for example. In fact, I'd expect the organizational issue to be worse if you have to upload the kits to any of a large number of independant services. If one of them gets corrupted for whatever reason, you'll still have to refer back to an unadulterated version somewhere. Best, I think, if that "somewhere" is SF. What am I missing? Selden |