[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnumed-devel] Re: proposal for 'Downloads' wiki page
From: |
James Busser |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnumed-devel] Re: proposal for 'Downloads' wiki page |
Date: |
Mon, 08 Sep 2008 13:03:51 -0700 |
On 8-Sep-08, at 11:11 AM, Gour wrote:
I'd put direct wording: GNUmed-0.31 with the link to
http://www.gnumed.de/downloads/client/0.3/GNUmed-client.0.3.1.tgz
Being done. I do note at
http://www.gnumed.de/downloads/client/
that there exist there
GNUmed-client.latest.tgz
which seems to correctly match
http://www.gnumed.de/downloads/client/0.3/GNUmed-client.0.3.1.tgz
however /client/ also contains
GNUmed-client.latest.exe
which seems to correspond to .exe version 0.3.0 and not 0.3.1
I am just wondering... if it is manual work and therefore subject to
error to point people to extra copies that are named "latest" is
there anything lost by pointing people directly to the newest
specifically-named versions, at least that way there will be no risk
of them being named "latest" when they are not, in fact, "latest".
I aim to regularly update the links from Download as soon as I am
advised/aware of a new release.
Can we get rid of the copies called "latest" or are they needed for
something scripted like the update-checker?