[ut2003io] Update patch 2166 fails in pagages.md5

Marius hrome+icculus at rasmus.uib.no
Fri Dec 20 07:57:58 EST 2002

> On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 06:12:47AM -0500, Ryan C. Gordon wrote:
> > It should be. I thought it was generally agreed that the
autoupdater, as
> > far as admins were concerned, was convenient to get a fresh install
> > to date, but generally the tarballs were the way to go on a
> > patch-to-patch basis.
> yeah, but if the packages.md5 file is completely included or even
> excluded from the patch nobody will suffer since the packages.md5 is
> updated when a connection is made with the master server. The updater
> just much easier to use to update a server then messing with a
> --
> Michiel "El Muerte" Hendriks        

I agree. The updater would be my preference in keeping the server
current / in sync. After been through the clean install thing today I
have updated my wishes for Santa / Los Reyes - a Linux dedicated package
based on the current release. The updater is broken in the first release
and you need to get that odd first patch.


More information about the ut2003 mailing list