Re: Suggestion for submitted port package naming standard...

["Stephen C. Biggs" <s_c_biggs at bigfoot dot com>]

On 19 Dec 2000, at 21:56, Michael Hirmke wrote:

> Hi Stephen,
> 
> >How about this (for both distro and ftp.franken.de):
> ><package name and version>.CYGWIN[version??]-PATCHED.src.tar.gz
> ><package name and version>.CYGWIN-BINARY-INSTALL.tar.gz
> ><package name and version>.CYGWIN.patch
> ><package name and version>.CYGWIN.README
> >
> >Either the README would have a link to the vanilla source tarball or a
> >separate text file:
> ><package name and version>.CYGWIN.VANILLA-SOURCE-URL.txt
> >
> >This way, no ambiguities.
> >
> >Comments?
> 
> Sorry, but it is surely not me to decide this.

Who IS the one to decide?

> Besides that - the actual naming scheme has proved useful for years now,
> why should we change it?

As far as I can see, there IS no defined naming scheme; not for 
your ftp site and not for the distribution.  And, as to why we should 
change it... especially the naming of the source file, because the 
naming of the source file is ambiguous to the extreme... that is, what 
I see now is:
<package name/version>.src.tar.gz
... which is this?  The Cygwin patched or the vanilla source???  And 
if you say <package name/version>.cygwin.tar.gz, what exactly is 
that?? It is probably the binary, but how do you know for sure unless 
you inspect the tar file. File names should be helpful and 
descriptive... THAT is why we should change it.


> 
> Thx anyway for your suggestion.
> 
> Bye.
> Michael.
> -- 
> Michael Hirmke           | Telefon +49 (911) 557999
> Georg-Strobel-Strasse 81 | FAX     +49 (911) 557664
> 90489 Nuernberg          | E-Mail  mailto:mh@mike.franken.de
>                          | WWW     http://aquarius.franken.de/



--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple