[GRASS5] Package name convention - was: Re: [GRASSLIST:311] Re: Source packages

GRASS GRASS developer
1

[moved to developers list]

Dear developers,

below is a proposal for a modified name convention of GRASS source
packages.

Should we follow below suggestion?

Thanks for comments,

Markus

On Fri, Jun 06, 2003 at 04:50:05PM +0200, Buchan Milne wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Markus Neteler wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 04, 2003 at 01:03:02PM -0400, R. Sean Fulton wrote:
>
>>Is there a convention for naming GRASS source packages? I ask because
>>I've been playing with building RPMS and DarwinPorts packages which
>>assume the source package name and the extracted directory name will
>>be the same. (e.g. they expect grass-5.0.2_src.tar.gz to extract to
>>'grass-5.0.2_src/' but it extracts to 'grass5.0.2/')
>>
>>That's an oversimplification, there are work-arounds but there seems
>>to be a convention of APPNAME-VERION for the source directory.
>
>
> Mea culpa - the *GRASS* naming "convention" was a sort of evolving
> over the years.
>
>
>>Has this issue ever come up? Are the maintainers aware of it? Do you
>>think anyone cares?
>
>
> Not yet :slight_smile: But I see no problem to update the scripts to follow
> a well known naming convention. Let me know what's common and
> I'll update the cronjobs.
>

%{name}-%version}.tar.gz containing %{name}-%{version}/ is customary,
for about 90% of the packages I have made, then some have
%{name}-%{version}_src.tar.gz containing %{name}-%version}/ .

Since source is typically the standard way of distribution, and there is
no such thing as a generic binary, IMHO, the _src suffix to the version
is useless.

The big thing though is that the directory name should be
%{name}-%{version}, to avoid having all RPM packagers having to add "-n
%{name}%{version}" or "-n %{name}_%{version}" or similar to %setup.

Most important thing is to be consistent though ... otherwise we keep
having to make patches like this for no reason:

http://cvs.mandrakesoft.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/contrib-SPECS/grass/grass.spec.diff?r1=1.7&r2=1.8

- -%setup -q
+%setup -q -n %{name}%{version}

>
>>It's certainly nothing critical, I'm just curious.
>
> No problem. If things can be made better, we should improve them.

It's been mentioned before (so 5.0.0 was right), so chances are that the
actual naming of the directory in a release is not done by a script, but
should be ...

Regards,
Buchan

- --
|--------------Another happy Mandrake Club member--------------|
Buchan Milne Mechanical Engineer, Network Manager
Cellphone * Work +27 82 472 2231 * +27 21 8828820x202
Stellenbosch Automotive Engineering http://www.cae.co.za
GPG Key Blog - Mikula Beutl - SEO Consulting
1024D/60D204A7 2919 E232 5610 A038 87B1 72D6 AC92 BA50 60D2 04A7
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQE+4KodrJK6UGDSBKcRAiJmAJ9LkQMnVuYbNS7SIxe39Ns1cCzd6QCgsfri
qvPlFLeoJ2DP0LKRjuVhDZQ=
=O46V
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

******************************************************************
Please click on http://www.cae.co.za/disclaimer.htm to read our
e-mail disclaimer or send an e-mail to info@cae.co.za for a copy.
******************************************************************

2

On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 05:01:45PM +0200, Markus Neteler wrote:

[moved to developers list]

Dear developers,

below is a proposal for a modified name convention of GRASS source
packages.

Should we follow below suggestion?

my recommendation is grass-5.0.2.tar.gz,
ie. $name-$version.tar.gz
where version is always a triplet, but could also look like
5.1.0pre1 pr 5.2.0rc1
[which implicates my proposal on how to name pre-releases and
release candidates - well, pretty common in the Free Software
world]

Using the suffix 'src' indeed is quite useless.
Instead, binaries should have some suffixes (which must indicate
the platform anyway).

  Jan
--
Jan-Oliver Wagner http://intevation.de/~jan/

Intevation GmbH http://intevation.de/
FreeGIS http://freegis.org/

3

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Jan-Oliver Wagner wrote:

On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 05:01:45PM +0200, Markus Neteler wrote:

[moved to developers list]

Dear developers,

below is a proposal for a modified name convention of GRASS source
packages.

Should we follow below suggestion?

my recommendation is grass-5.0.2.tar.gz,
ie. $name-$version.tar.gz
where version is always a triplet, but could also look like
5.1.0pre1 pr 5.2.0rc1
[which implicates my proposal on how to name pre-releases and
release candidates - well, pretty common in the Free Software
world]

Using the suffix 'src' indeed is quite useless.
Instead, binaries should have some suffixes (which must indicate
the platform anyway).

Does anyone else agree with this? Can it be adopted (and put into
release-management scripts?).

Oh, and while we're discussing pre-releases, any suggestoins on
numbering packages of grass51 from CVS, besides using 5.1.0cvs$date (ie
for a package grass51-5.1.0-0.cvs20030614.1mdk.i586.rpm instead of the
one I currently use:
http://ranger.dnsalias.com/mandrake/9.1/grass51-5.0.99-0.cvs20030614.1mdk.i586.rpm
)

Regards,
Buchan

- --
|--------------Another happy Mandrake Club member--------------|
Buchan Milne Mechanical Engineer, Network Manager
Cellphone * Work +27 82 472 2231 * +27 21 8828820x202
Stellenbosch Automotive Engineering http://www.cae.co.za
GPG Key http://ranger.dnsalias.com/bgmilne.asc
1024D/60D204A7 2919 E232 5610 A038 87B1 72D6 AC92 BA50 60D2 04A7
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQE+9uaorJK6UGDSBKcRAuUBAKC+j8XFKR8O6KffsnrJJUZd+3iTcgCgiBVH
zeeLwOB9CZsIGlIZE4DG36k=
=HPDu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

******************************************************************
Please click on http://www.cae.co.za/disclaimer.htm to read our
e-mail disclaimer or send an e-mail to info@cae.co.za for a copy.
******************************************************************