Re: Package naming conventions
От | Raphaël Enrici |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Package naming conventions |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 3F33B4D1.1090506@club-internet.fr обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Package naming conventions ("Dave Page" <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk>) |
Список | pgadmin-hackers |
Dave Page wrote: >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Jean-Michel POURE [mailto:jm.poure@freesurf.fr] >>Sent: 08 August 2003 14:51 >>To: Raphaël Enrici; Dave Page >>Cc: pgadmin-hackers@postgresql.org >>Subject: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Package naming conventions >>Dear all, >>I agree with Raphaël. We cannot have two naming conventions >>for technical >>reasons. It is not possible to change the version of an RPM >>at file system >>level. Furthermore, users should be able to install from >>snapshots, then >>upgrade with beta, then install snapshots, etc... >> >> >The problem is that the date is only applicable to snapshots. Release versions may be created anytime after CVS is tagged. >What do other projects do? > If you look to what I did in debian packages, the actual beta is 0.9.0-0.1 if we build a snapshot release of a new 0.9.0 (what we shouldn't as it would be incompatible with what we said before), it will be named 0.9.0-0.1+cvsYYYYMMDD.1 which is greater than 0.9.0-0.1 so it's ok. if we build a snapshot release of a new devel branch i.e 0.9.1 (what should be the right way of handling this), it will be named 0.9.0-0.0[AND NOT 1]+cvsYYYYMMDD.1 which is also greater than 0.9.0-0.1, so upgrade is also ok. IMHO it's one of the good way of handling this. Do you agree ? Thanks, Raphaël
В списке pgadmin-hackers по дате отправления: