From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Drew Adams Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: No README at someGNU mirrors Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2017 16:17:34 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <5ddfdccc-fcd1-4b9c-9249-486987dfd664@default> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1488673101 3543 195.159.176.226 (5 Mar 2017 00:18:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2017 00:18:21 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Mar 05 01:18:14 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ckJsL-0008Oj-3W for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 05 Mar 2017 01:18:13 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:37092 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ckJsQ-0007L0-QL for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 04 Mar 2017 19:18:18 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:53987) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ckJrs-0007Jx-Nu for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 04 Mar 2017 19:17:45 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ckJrp-0006SB-JC for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 04 Mar 2017 19:17:44 -0500 Original-Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:24233) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ckJrp-0006Rl-AE for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 04 Mar 2017 19:17:41 -0500 Original-Received: from userv0021.oracle.com (userv0021.oracle.com [156.151.31.71]) by userp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id v250HdhT010107 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Sun, 5 Mar 2017 00:17:39 GMT Original-Received: from aserv0121.oracle.com (aserv0121.oracle.com [141.146.126.235]) by userv0021.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id v250HcFT022139 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Sun, 5 Mar 2017 00:17:39 GMT Original-Received: from abhmp0006.oracle.com (abhmp0006.oracle.com [141.146.116.12]) by aserv0121.oracle.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id v250Hakq002663 for ; Sun, 5 Mar 2017 00:17:37 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9.1 (1003210) [OL 12.0.6753.5000 (x86)] X-Source-IP: userv0021.oracle.com [156.151.31.71] X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.4.x-2.6.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 156.151.31.81 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:212757 Archived-At: At the GNU Emacs download page, https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/download.html, there is a link, http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/emacs/windows/, for downloading GNU Emacs from the main site. No problem with that. There is another link, http://ftpmirror.gnu.org/emacs/windows, which takes you to one of the mirror sites for downloading - presumably a different mirror each time you follow the link. Some of those mirror sites do not have the README file. They have only the .zip's and .zip.sig's. Without the README file you won't see this info, in particular: There are two binary distributions named emacs-n-x86_64-w64-mingw32.zip and emacs-n-i686-w64-mingw32.zip. These are for 64-bit and 32-bit machines respectively. So you won't know which link to use. The zip-file names do not obviously tell you which is 64-bit and which is 32-bit. Sure, many people will know what x86 vs i686 means. And anyone can google "x86 vs i686", to find out, if they don't know. Still, some people will not know and may not find out. This is not as helpful for users as it should be. Dunno what the solution is. Maybe a better naming scheme? There are occurrences of "64" in both names, which can add to the confusion. Yes, it's clear enough if you have the README, and the dates in the names etc. are clear enough. But the 32-bit vs 64-bit distinction is not very clear from just the zip names.