Hi Dick, Just one quick question. Did you notice the 2nd build I uploaded recently of the installer. It contains the patch that Andrew has been using, and seemed to fix the issue.
Cheers, Steve On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 00:56 Dick Baker <p...@dickbaker.org> wrote: > Gentlemen, > > As you'll recall, I first reported that I was unable to post binaries > successfully in 0.139, the .msi version that I installed a few weeks > ago. The files seemed to go out, and *look* complete in a header > listing, but downloading them results only in a series of 1K error > files (this is true for downloading both in Pan and my trusty old Xnews). > > Andrew then sent his own version of 0.140 (build date 20141024) in a > zip file that I extracted and ran from my D: drive so it wouldn't > disturb the existing 0.139 installation; including a batch file to > copy the profile files from 0.139 into the one he selected. His > 0.140 came up looking just like the existing 0.139, but binary > uploading worked fine. About the time I was reporting that, Steve > announced that he'd completed a win32 install of 0.140 "with all GIT > patches as of today 10/Nov/2014." > > So I just installed Steve's 0.140 right over the existing 0.139, > which now reports that it's "Chocolate Salty Balls (Unknown; > i686-pc-mingw32)." > > But NO LUCK. If you'll look in alt.binaries.test for the string of > tests beginning with "Baker test..." [on Nov. 11]* you'll see that I > uploaded the same batch of files in the new Niles version and Steve's > updated win32 install version, and the results are the same: The > files uploaded with the Win32/.msi install still are corrupt--when > downloaded, they come out as dozens of 1K error files. > > I can't imagine that the problem is in the various profiles and > preferences settings, because Andrew's installation simply copied > those files over from the existing 0.139 installation. > > Thinking that my having installed the new win32 0.140 right over the > existing 0.139 might have buggered things up, I uninstalled the > program completely and started over with a fresh install of the > win32/.msi 0.140, but the result was the same. > > Then I had another brainstorm: Could there be a difference between > XP and Win7 in how the win32 installs work? I had installed the > win32/.msi 0.139 update on my XP computer right before moving out of > it to my new Win7 one, so I fired the old one up and tried uploading > binaries in 0.139 in XP. Nope, same failure. Then I updated the > 0.139 to Steve's new 0.140 on the XP and tried again: same failure. > > It would certainly appear that *something* is keeping the win32/.msi > installed program from uploading binaries, something that's not > happening to Andrew's zipped version. > > ___________________ > (*If you did look in alt.binaries.test, you'd have seen two different > versions of each upload, one with "Thread Attached Replies" selected, > one without. For some reason, I was sure I'd tried it both ways with > the same results in my first round of tests with Andrew's build, but > obviously I was mistaken. They behave as advertised. But for what > it's worth, I vastly prefer the way Xnews handles the same chore, > which you'll also see. The "base message" with the chosen subject > line but no attachments appears first--a very handy place to write a > note telling potential downloaders what you're posting--then all the > attachments follow at the same top level with the same subject line.) > > > > _______________________________________________ > Pan-users mailing list > Pan-users@nongnu.org > https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/pan-users >
_______________________________________________ Pan-users mailing list Pan-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/pan-users
