Re: Package naming conventions - Mailing list pgadmin-hackers

Dave Page wrote:

>Hi Guys,
>I have corrected the naming on some of the uploaded beta releases as
>they were inconsistant. For reference, let's try to use something like:
>
 > Snapshots

>=========
>pgadmin3-yyyymmdd.tgz
>pgadmin3-yyyymmdd.txt
>pgadmin3-yyyymmdd.tar.gz
>pgadmin3-yyyymmdd.i386.rpm
>
>Releases
>========
>pgadmin3-x.y.z.tgz
>pgadmin3-x.y.z.txt
>pgadmin3-x.y.z.tar.gz
>pgadmin3-x.y.z.i386.rpm
>Of course, local conventions may dictate slightly different formats, but
>for anything other than snapshots, let's keep to the version number in
>the filename.
>
>
Dear all,

I Totally agree with Dave. But don't you think we could go further ? As
you just renamed files, the informations concerning the packages are
still what they were when it was released :
for example :
rpm -qpi pgadmin3-0.9.0.i586.rpm
Name        : pgadmin3                     Relocations: (not relocateable)
Version     : 0.9                               Vendor: (none)
Release     : 20030806                      Build Date: Wed Aug  6
18:28:01 2003Install date: (not installed)               Build Host:
mandrake.translationforge.com

So, this is still pgadmin3 version 0.9 release 20030806 which is the
same versionning scheme as snapshots releases (I took a rpm because I
don't know anything about slackware and freebsd packages). Shouldn't the
packages be built again with right versions ? IMHO it's not really
important for beta releases but why not trying to do now what we will
have to do for the final release ? By this way, we will ask us the good
questions now and not for final release.

Just for information and critics from you friends, here is what I did
for Debian packages (and which may be used for other packaging system),
I'm REALLY open to any corrections concerning this :
- snapshots releases are versionned like this :
pgadmin3-x.y.z-0.m+cvsYYYYMMDD-n whith x.y.z equal to pgadmin3 version,
m and n minor releases number concerning the package itself.
- beta and future stable releases are versionned like this :
pgadmin3-x.y.z-0.m
The "0" in the package release part is imposed by the fact that these
packages are not official debian one and will become "1" and further
when integrated in Debian (Think it's a good thing that could be adopted
by other packagers ?)
Note that I think that the beta and future stable package releases will
live their own life (corrections, etc...) independently from snapshots
releases (I mean in a package point of view).

Regards,

Raphaël