Thread: Package naming conventions
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. Cheers, Dave.
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
> -----Original Message----- > From: Raphaël Enrici [mailto:blacknoz@club-internet.fr] > Sent: 08 August 2003 14:53 > To: Dave Page > Cc: pgadmin-hackers@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Package naming conventions > > > > 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 : Urgh. didn't realise that info was in the RPMs. It's not in the Win32 or Slackware releases. > 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 > pgadmin3-x.y.z-0.m+cvsYYYYMMDD-n whith x.y.z equal to I think the x.y.z is redundant. We don't use the build number for snapshots, so the date should suffice on it's own. Regards, Dave.
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... Cheers, Jean-Michel On Friday 08 August 2003 15:52, Raphaël Enrici wrote: > 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).
> -----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? Regards, Dave.
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
Dave Page wrote: > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Raphaël Enrici [mailto:blacknoz@club-internet.fr] >>Sent: 08 August 2003 15:28 >>To: Dave Page >>Subject: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Package naming conventions >> >> >>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. >> >> >In pure version number terms, 0.9.0 *is* beta 1. It will not be on any other release. > That's ok for me, that's why I said that we shouldn't have another snap build with 0.9.0 version. I just add that we may have to release new packages to correct some breaks coming from the package itself for example and that this will be followed by the minor number incremented in the package number. (0.9.0-0.1, 0.9.0-0.2,... and finally 0.9.0-1.0 if the package become an official member of debian... May be one day... Who knows ?) > Snapshots will now be 0.9.1 + date, and then beta 2 will be 0.9.2, then snapshots will be 0.9.3 + date and so on. > Still ok for me :) but the date is just part of the package release for snapshots. >Do we need anything more complicated? > No that's what I tried to told in my previous mail (I surely badly explained it), with only some considerations regarding packages. But that's not what is actually done for some packages on the ftp site: I just wanted to cath your eyes on this.... So shall the rpm packages, and may be some other, be rebuilt for this beta release ? If so, Jean Michel do you need some help concerning this work ? Regards, Raphaël >Regards, Dave. >PS. In pgAdmin II we didn't use dates, but each build incremented the build number (z in x.y.z). That relied on VB to autoincrementthe number though :-( > >
Dave Page wrote: > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Raphaël Enrici [mailto:blacknoz@club-internet.fr] >>Sent: 08 August 2003 14:53 >>To: Dave Page >>Cc: pgadmin-hackers@postgresql.org >>Subject: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Package naming conventions >> >> >> >>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 : >> >> > >Urgh. didn't realise that info was in the RPMs. It's not in the Win32 or Slackware releases. > We can have verbose version information in win32 using VERSION resources. This would be win32-best-practice. I'll have a look at it. Regards, Andreas
On Friday 08 August 2003 17:21, Raphaël Enrici wrote: > So shall the rpm packages, and > may be some other, be rebuilt for this beta release ? If so, Jean Michel > do you need some help concerning this work ? Dear friends, RPM packages are named: name-version-release.rpm A version can be 0.9.0, 0.9.1, etc... The release number can be anything. Both version and release number must exist. You cannot have pgadmin3-0.9.0.rpm but you can have: pgadmin3-0.9.0-1.rpm Because release number must exist and can be anything, it does shock me to use a build date. Besides, it proved to be very usefull for users, as read in the email: "I use pgAdmin3 build date 200307..." In my opinion, a beta is just a build date that we consider more stable than others and declare beta. It is just a convention. ANYWAY: I am rebuilding betas with pgadmin3-0.9.0-1.rpm and will upload them during the night. It will take me some time because I have to rebuild wxWindows as well. I missed the information to upgrade to 20030722... Cheers, Jean-Michel (from Bretagne!!!)
On Friday 08 August 2003 16:09, Dave Page wrote: > What do other projects do? Some projects like Wine use date time for release numbers. Very few projects use dates. It would solve many problems in my opinion, because anyone understands a date. Release number + date gives you a precise information at the first glance. Cheers, Jean-Michel
Jean-Michel POURE wrote: > It will take me some time because I have to rebuild > >wxWindows as well. I missed the information to upgrade to 20030722... > I missed it too... Did you find any mail concerning this ? Wasn't it a wx snap that was about to become the supported one but gave some problem at the last minute ? To me, the last good known and supported one was 20030707... Dave, Andreas ? >Cheers, >Jean-Michel (from Bretagne!!!) > > Please kiss the ocean for me. Raphaël
> -----Original Message----- > From: Jean-Michel POURE [mailto:jm.poure@freesurf.fr] > Sent: 09 August 2003 20:25 > To: Dave Page; Raphaël Enrici > Cc: pgadmin-hackers@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Package naming conventions > > > On Friday 08 August 2003 16:09, Dave Page wrote: > > What do other projects do? > > Some projects like Wine use date time for release numbers. > Very few projects > use dates. It would solve many problems in my opinion, because anyone > understands a date. > > Release number + date gives you a precise information at the > first glance. It makes sense for snapshots, but say I build beta 2 tomorrow, and Hiroshi builds the FreeBSD port on Monday, having checkedout CVS with the tag I created. The date is less meaningful then, but the version isn't. Just my $0.02 :-) /D
> -----Original Message----- > From: Raphaël Enrici [mailto:blacknoz@club-internet.fr] > Sent: 09 August 2003 20:41 > To: jm.poure@freesurf.fr; Dave Page; Andreas Pflug > Cc: pgadmin-hackers@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Package naming conventions > > > Jean-Michel POURE wrote: > > > It will take me some time because I have to rebuild > > > >wxWindows as well. I missed the information to upgrade to 20030722... > > > I missed it too... Did you find any mail concerning this ? > Wasn't it a > wx snap that was about to become the supported one but gave > some problem > at the last minute ? > To me, the last good known and supported one was 20030707... > Dave, Andreas ? Sorry guys, maybe I forgot to email the list. We upgraded due to issues in wxHtml/wxHtmlHelp on Windows. There were alsoa couple of other fixes for Unicode support iirc. > Please kiss the ocean for me. Yes, and me. The last bit I was at was on the island of Cumbrae and was covered in jellyfish, about 4 miles from a nuclearpowerstation :-( Best I've got now is a 10 foot pool in the garden!! /D
On Saturday 09 August 2003 21:21, Jean-Michel POURE wrote:
> ANYWAY: I am rebuilding betas with pgadmin3-0.9.0-1.rpm and will upload
> them during the night. It will take me some time because I have to rebuild
> wxWindows as well. I missed the information to upgrade to 20030722...
Dear friends,
Raphaël wrote me that the required wxWindows version was 20030707, this is OK
for me. To sum up the RPM thing which differs slightlly from Debian:
1) CVS snapshots are numbered:
pgadmin3-{version}-cvs{date}.rpm
pgadmin3-0.9.0-cvs20030809.rpm
2) FTP uploads are numbered:
pgadmin3-{version}-{build}.rpm
pgadmin3-0.9.0-1.rpm
Build should be 1, 2, 3, etc...
When you release a new {version}, the {build} goes back to 1.
Agreed? On your reply, I will rebuild the packages.
Cheers, Jean-Michel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jean-Michel POURE [mailto:jm@poure.com]
> Sent: 09 August 2003 21:56
> To: Raphaël Enrici; Dave Page
> Cc: pgadmin-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Package naming conventions
>
>
> On Saturday 09 August 2003 21:21, Jean-Michel POURE wrote:
> > ANYWAY: I am rebuilding betas with pgadmin3-0.9.0-1.rpm and will
> > upload them during the night. It will take me some time
> because I have
> > to rebuild wxWindows as well. I missed the information to
> upgrade to
> > 20030722...
>
> Dear friends,
>
> Raphaël wrote me that the required wxWindows version was
> 20030707, this is OK
> for me. To sum up the RPM thing which differs slightlly from Debian:
>
> 1) CVS snapshots are numbered:
> pgadmin3-{version}-cvs{date}.rpm
> pgadmin3-0.9.0-cvs20030809.rpm
>
> 2) FTP uploads are numbered:
> pgadmin3-{version}-{build}.rpm
> pgadmin3-0.9.0-1.rpm
>
> Build should be 1, 2, 3, etc...
> When you release a new {version}, the {build} goes back to 1.
>
> Agreed? On your reply, I will rebuild the packages.
> Cheers, Jean-Michel
Sounds good to me. Not sure the cvs in the snapshot names is needed, but I don't think it hurts.
Regards, Dave.
Dave Page wrote:
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Jean-Michel POURE [mailto:jm@poure.com]
>>Sent: 09 August 2003 21:56
>>To: Raphaël Enrici; Dave Page
>>Cc: pgadmin-hackers@postgresql.org
>>Subject: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Package naming conventions
>>
>>
>>
>>Dear friends,
>>
>>Raphaël wrote me that the required wxWindows version was
>>20030707, this is OK
>>for me. To sum up the RPM thing which differs slightlly from Debian:
>>
Dear Jean Michel,
You were right and I was wrong, it's now 20030722, I'll launch my builds
tomorrow.
>>1) CVS snapshots are numbered:
>>pgadmin3-{version}-cvs{date}.rpm
>>pgadmin3-0.9.0-cvs20030809.rpm
>>2) FTP uploads are numbered:
>>pgadmin3-{version}-{build}.rpm
>>pgadmin3-0.9.0-1.rpm
>>
>>Build should be 1, 2, 3, etc...
>>When you release a new {version}, the {build} goes back to 1.
>>Agreed? On your reply, I will rebuild the packages.
>>Cheers, Jean-Michel
>>
>>
>Sounds good to me. Not sure the cvs in the snapshot names is needed, but I don't think it hurts.
>
>
It's ok for me and really near from what is done on Debian, I like it
:). Dave, the cvs information can have its importance when the package
is found in an official distro, to distinguish the build from a fully
"stable" one. I found quite a lot of package versioned like that in
debian and think it's easy to read and as you said it doesn't hurt.
Cheers,
Raphaël
Dave Page wrote: > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Raphaël Enrici [mailto:blacknoz@club-internet.fr] >>Sent: 09 August 2003 20:41 >>To: jm.poure@freesurf.fr; Dave Page; Andreas Pflug >>Cc: pgadmin-hackers@postgresql.org >>Subject: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Package naming conventions >> >> >>Jean-Michel POURE wrote: >> >> >> >>>It will take me some time because I have to rebuild >>> >>>wxWindows as well. I missed the information to upgrade to 20030722... >>> >>> >>> >>I missed it too... Did you find any mail concerning this ? >>Wasn't it a >>wx snap that was about to become the supported one but gave >>some problem >>at the last minute ? >>To me, the last good known and supported one was 20030707... >>Dave, Andreas ? >> >> > >Sorry guys, maybe I forgot to email the list. We upgraded due to issues in wxHtml/wxHtmlHelp on Windows. There were alsoa couple of other fixes for Unicode support iirc. > I thought we did announce this. > > > >>Please kiss the ocean for me. >> >> > >Yes, and me. The last bit I was at was on the island of Cumbrae and was covered in jellyfish, about 4 miles from a nuclearpowerstation :-( > Hu, that sounds really attractive... >Best I've got now is a 10 foot pool in the garden!! > Better than what I've got, so I'll have a trip to the Ostsee tomorrow, to escape this heat, and won't be back before monday. Regards, Andreas