The Testing Area :: September Extensions

It was because WDef requested to have the previous version up:

Quote (WDef @ Sep. 19 2007,02:31)

@stupid_idiot:
Thanks and keep up the good work on the wine uci ...
unfortunately I'm getting some errors with the updated uci on a win app that previously worked well (eg address violations).
Could we perhaps have the previous version back as well for the time being? - I deleted it and no longer have it.

Also: I will resend 'wine-0.9.4x.uci'.
Thanks!

Quote (roberts @ Sep. 26 2007,01:38)

Wouldn't wine-0.9.4x trump v0.9.42?

Also, please consider my suggestion (from earlier post):

Quote

For software packages that have many regressions or changes per release, it would be ideal to keep all of them.
This could include things like wine, drivers (like video), X... amongst others.

Also, can you answer this roberts? (should probably ask this in the extension dev thread, but asking here just in case someone is following in this one)

Quote

regarding the use of /opt/bin: afaik they were added to PATH for the use of symlinks. Should this be kept for symlinks only? What should the standard be?

Prefer symlinks, as adding actual binaries would consume ramdisk, especailly true for uci.

Posted wine-0.9.4x.uci and sopcaster.uci

Thanks to J.S. and Humpty.

Hi Roberts:
Would like to volunteer to reduce size on apps in mydsl/testing.
What I want to do is:
1. D/L extensions
2. Unpack and look for documentation, locale data, unstripped binaries & libraries, ..
3. Maybe 'upx --best' on the bigger binaries?
4. Run 'advdef -z4' on tarball-type extensions
5. Re-submit just the extension file + .md5.txt (.info file unchanged). [probably should submit in bulk?]
The reason I suggest this is because you might be busy with other things, yes?
Is this okay? Will be happy to help out.
Or, is this impractical because of [reasons]?
Thanks.

Next Page...
original here.