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

[Johannes Schickel]

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?

// Johannes