On 02/13/13 12:01, Helmut Karlowski wrote:
Jo Even Skarstein, 13.02.2013 12:50:41:On Tue, 2013-02-12 at 22:37 +0100, Helmut Karlowski wrote:> Thanks for the pointer. I'm a little unsure why we fallback to > xaaes.rsc, if the current xaaes014.rsc isn't found, that could seem > prone to errors if it doesn't contain the right version. That's also checked, there is a version-info inside the file too.Then I don't understand why the filename contains the version too. It makes a mess of the xaaes-folder every time a new minor version of XaAES is installed.What mess?
I guess you end up with.... xaaes014.rsc xaaes015.rsc xaaes016.rscetc. But the XaAES binary is a single file, and you don't know which RSC file it uses. Obviously you assume xaaes016.rsc as you think you've got the latest XaAES binaries. But you no longer need xaaes015.rsc and xaaes014.rsc, but how would you know ??
We don't have things like ext2fs01.xfs, ext2fs02.xfs etc, so I guess why should RSC's be versioned in the filename when things are versioned and checked in the file themselves ??
Alan.