[GRASS5] GRASS 5.7.0

GRASS GRASS developer
1

http://grass.itc.it/grass57/source/grass-5.7.0.tar.gz

My suggestion for binary names is to follow rpm conventions (if there are any?):
grass-5.7.0-<binary_version>.<OS/distribution>.<OS/distribution version>.<HW>.tar.gz

For example:
grass-5.7.0-1.suse9.0.i686.tar.gz
grass-5.7.0-1.redhat7.2.i386.tar.gz
grass-5.7.0-3.solaris7.6.sparc.tar.gz

Radim

2

Radim Blazek wrote:

http://grass.itc.it/grass57/source/grass-5.7.0.tar.gz

My suggestion for binary names is to follow rpm conventions (if there are any?):
grass-5.7.0-<binary_version>.<OS/distribution>.<OS/distribution version>.<HW>.tar.gz

For example:
grass-5.7.0-1.suse9.0.i686.tar.gz
grass-5.7.0-1.redhat7.2.i386.tar.gz
grass-5.7.0-3.solaris7.6.sparc.tar.gz

Radim

This is a good idea ! What do you think of this minor modification ?

This is the rpm naming convention
http://www.rpm.org/max-rpm/ch-rpm-file-format.html#S1-RPM-FILE-FORMAT-FILE-NAMING-CONVENTION

Also LSB suggest the following naming convention
http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/refspecs/LSB_1.2.0/gLSB/pkgnameconv.html

Both have some limitations.

The maximum rpm spec doesn't explain how to maintain information about the distribution. And the LSB represent a lot of work and is quite inhabitual.

I think that could modify the suggest rpm naming convention

/name/-/version/-/release/./architecture/.rpm

to add on the <os/distribution tag>

name-version-realease.distribution.architecture

For exemple : grass-5.7.0-1.suse.i686.tar.gz
grass-5.7.0-1.redhat.i386.tar.gz

I think the concept of distribution version is hard to maintain and is only valuable in system using only original rpm.
The system of dependencies of rpm is good enough to find what is needed to install package.

If the objective is to allow same distro, but different libraries version to get the package. Maybye it will be more usefull to specify which dependencies make possible to install this rpm for fedora in core 2, but not core 1, by exemple.
(Is it glibc ? is it tcltk ?)

Regards,

Jean-Denis

3

On Thursday 17 June 2004 17:50, Jean-Denis Giguere wrote:

>My suggestion for binary names is to follow rpm conventions (if there are
> any?): grass-5.7.0-<binary_version>.<OS/distribution>.<OS/distribution
> version>.<HW>.tar.gz
>
>For example:
>grass-5.7.0-1.suse9.0.i686.tar.gz
>grass-5.7.0-1.redhat7.2.i386.tar.gz
>grass-5.7.0-3.solaris7.6.sparc.tar.gz

I think that could modify the suggest rpm naming convention

/name/-/version/-/release/./architecture/.rpm

to add on the <os/distribution tag>

name-version-realease.distribution.architecture

For exemple :
grass-5.7.0-1.suse.i686.tar.gz
grass-5.7.0-1.redhat.i386.tar.gz

I think the concept of distribution version is hard to maintain and is only
valuable in system using only original rpm.

That's true, I think that distributed binaries should be built only on
systems with original rmps and that is the reason why I cannot make
binaries.

The version of distribution is quite important. For example,
I am sure that GRASS compiled on RadHat9 does not work on RedHat7,
but maybe it could work on SuSe9?

The system of dependencies of rpm is good enough to find what
is needed to install package.

Yes, but I am talking about tar.gz binaries, RPM specification
was added to GRASS yesterday, so it is in early testing stage, I think,
and we cannot fully rely on it now.

Radim