[screenweaver] New patch available [3.1.0.3]

[Thomas Wester]

Thanks Ed :) Sorry about this guys, I had to run and wanted to post an update. Picked the wrong .dll to pack. This incident makes me think harder about a more automated and fool proof update process.

cheers,
-Thomas

-----Original Message-----
From: screenweaver-bounces at osflash.org on behalf of Edwin van Rijkom
Sent: Sun 10/2/2005 12:16 PM
To: screenweaver at osflash.org
Subject: Re: [screenweaver] New patch available [3.1.0.3]
 
I've done a quick build from the updated sources. Didn't do any checking 
- but the DLL should be fine. I've overwritten the orginal patch at

http://screenweaver.org/downloads/screenweaver_builder_patch.rar

Cheers,
Edwin



Muzak wrote:

>I tried renaming the .dll and then compiling no longer works.
>Guess we'll have to wait for Thomas to wake up on his side of the planet ;-)
>
>Thomas,
>As for the UPX compression.
>Builds faster (that's not really a surprise) and I get less "Build Failures".
>I didn't have any problems with executables so far, so can't say I notice any difference with or without UPX.
>
>regards,
>Muzak
>
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: "Martijn de Visser" <martijn at martijndevisser.com>
>To: <screenweaver at osflash.org>
>Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2005 11:01 AM
>Subject: Re: [screenweaver] New patch available [3.1.0.3]
>
>
>  
>
>>Thomas Wester wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>There is a new patch available at:
>>>_http://screenweaver.org/downloads/screenweaver_builder_patch.rar_
>>>      
>>>
>>Terrific, thanks Thomas! I do have the same question as Muzak though -
>>did you perhaps pack wrong DLL, or do we need to rename it?
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Martijn, your stuff should work. The reason why
>>>swSystem.Dialogs.browseForFile_Open did not work for you is because of a
>>>typo. It should be swSystem.Dialogs.BrowseForFile_Open, note the capital
>>>B for Browse.
>>>      
>>>
>>* /me slaps forehead and starts looking for a dark corner to hide * :-)
>>
>>    
>>
>>>I am interested to see if UPX compression has any effect on the runtime
>>>stability. Michael, have you been able to do more exhaustive tests
>>>regarding this?
>>>      
>>>
>>I have been testing this as well (3 different projects) , but I have not
>>found any differences in stability between compressed and uncompressed
>>executables.
>>
>>cheers, Martijn.
>>-- 
>>
>>
>>    :: Martijn de Visser
>>    :: www.martijndevisser.com
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>screenweaver mailing list
>screenweaver at osflash.org
>http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/screenweaver_osflash.org
>
>
>
>
>  
>



_______________________________________________
screenweaver mailing list
screenweaver at osflash.org
http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/screenweaver_osflash.org

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 3877 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://osflash.org/pipermail/screenweaver_osflash.org/attachments/20051002/bf7d69e5/attachment.bin