[Scummvm-devel] [Scummvm-cvs-logs] SF.net SVN: scummvm:[56116] web/trunk/data/downloads.xml

[Thierry Crozat]

Le 8 juin 2011 à 18:11, Johannes Schickel a écrit :

> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 4:05 PM,  <sev at users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
>> Revision: 56116
>>          http://scummvm.svn.sourceforge.net/scummvm/?rev=56116&view=rev
>> Author:   sev
>> Date:     2011-06-08 14:05:15 +0000 (Wed, 08 Jun 2011)
>> 
>> Log Message:
>> -----------
>> WEB: Update file sizes, and remove irix builds from list of obsolete ones
>> [...]
>>                                        <category_icon>catpl-windows.png</category_icon>
>>                                        <url>scummvm-tools-{$release_tools}-win32.exe?download</url>
>>                                        <name>Tools - Windows Installer</name>
>> -                                       <extra_info>(1.8M Win32 .exe)</extra_info>
>> +                                       <extra_info>(1.9M Win32 .exe)</extra_info>
>>                                </file>
>>                                <file>
>>                                        <category_icon>catpl-windows.png</category_icon>
>>                                        <url>scummvm-tools-{$release_tools}-win32.zip?download</url>
>>                                        <name>Tools - Windows zipfile</name>
>> -                                       <extra_info>(3.3M Win32 .zip)</extra_info>
>> +                                       <extra_info>(3.5M Win32 .zip)</extra_info>
>>                                </file>
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I am not sure about this change. When I download the files the old
> file size for the installer is shown (tried with Firefox 3.6) and 3.4M
> for the zip file. A similar mismatch seems to happen for the Win32
> installer (probably others too I didn't check that now). It seems you
> changed them to the size sourceforge.net shows, which seems to be
> using 1000 instead of 1024 for the K, M factor for it's calculations.
> I would personally rather want to use 1024, so that it matches with
> what people will see when they actually download the file and IIRC it
> had been like this in the past. Any reason we switched to the sf.net
> style now?

For the Win32 installer that would be my fault (and also for the Win32 zip files). When I added these two for 1.3.0 on the download page I took the size from sf.net. The reason was simply that I didn't know sf.net used 1000 instead of 1024 to compute the size, and I didn't check the file size myself.

And I agree with you that it would probably be better to use 1024 and therefore to change the size on the download page.

Thierry