Sender: |
|
Date: |
Thu, 26 Mar 2015 07:05:16 +0000 |
Reply-To: |
|
Message-ID: |
|
Subject: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=windows-1252 |
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On 25/03/2015 22:36, Joseph Wright wrote:
> On 25/03/2015 21:52, Karl Berry wrote:
>> Sigh. Again: my point is that one way is verifiable and debuggable, the
>> other is not. If all that's stated is "7.0.0", and a user's result is
>> different, there is no way for the user to know if it's because Unicode
>> released two different files under that version number, there was an
>> error in the download, something changed or went wrong in the LaTeX
>> processing code, or ... who knows what.
>>
>> With a factual, verifiable, piece of information about the input files
>> used, any problem can be easily diagnosed, instead of having to be
>> guessed at.
>>
>> (Not that it's likely to matter in practice, I grant you.)
>
> This is done using pdfTeX's \pdfmdfivesum. I won't get a snapshot done
> today but will in the morning: check DropBox in about 12 hours!
I note that both of the files with versions also have dates. I wonder if
these might be as (or more) useful to most end users than MD5 sums.
After all, a version/date combination is what we use for LaTeX packages,
etc.
--
Joseph Wright
|
|
|