[crossfire] Reorganizing dist files on SourceForge download page

[Kevin Zheng]

On 04/25/2013 21:47, Mark Wedel wrote:
>  However, I didn't have the motivation to go back and fix all the other
> entries - if a CLI to the directory structure is available, probably not
> that hard (a few mkdirs here, a few mvs there), but if it all has to be
> done by the web interface, sort of an annoying process.

In fact, you can't move or rename stuff from the web GUI. Instead,
SourceForge provides shell or SFTP access to the distfiles. More details
are here:

http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/sourceforge/wiki/SFTP

>  Removing the crossfire- prefix on the directory name could be done - I
> don't feel strongly one way or the other on that.  I would say that the
> names of the actual tar archives may make more sense to rename, eg,
> arch-1.70.0.tar.gz, maps-1.70.0.tar.gz, etc.  The only issue with that
> is for sites that mirror it and don't put it in an appropriately named
> folder.

Agreed with the latter part; let's keep the 'crossfire-' prefix on the
tarballs themselves. I like dropping it from the folders, though.

> And it may make sense just to always/only do the archives in bz2 format,
> as that has been out long enough that it would seem unlikely that
> systems are lacking that ability

We can do that for future releases; no point in churning up old stuff.

>  The CrossfireEditor (crossfire-editor folder) is the gridarta based
> editor - the crossfire specific version vs the daimonin specific one. 
> IIRC, the reason that was in a different folder is that its version
> numbering is different.  I'm not sure the best way to handle that -
> putting in an editor-0.9 in the crossfire-1.70.0 directory just seems
> sort of odd from a numbering standpoint.

Didn't realize that; sorry! :p

>  I believe the main reason the windows client & server were in separate
> directories is that the packagers of those were different people, and
> thus the timing of their release did not always correspond to the
> release of the other files.  But I don't think there is any reason the
> maintainers/REs of those files couldn't put them in the same version
> directory.

I think that's a good idea.

Also, not a bad idea to warn the masses before moving stuff.

Thanks,
Kevin Zheng