| 1 |
On Sat, 2007-03-17 at 00:11 +0100, Carsten Lohrke wrote: |
| 2 |
> There's absolutely no reason to absorb every single version naming scheme on |
| 3 |
> earth. Gentoo's does work nicely and more than we have would only be |
| 4 |
> irritating to the user. Simply use _pre<datecode> or whatever fits, but |
| 5 |
> extending our naming scheme is unneeded and pointless. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Well that's the problem. When I use say _pre instead of _dev it gives |
| 8 |
off the wrong impression to users judging package by it's name. Since |
| 9 |
it's not a pre-release. A user may go upstream looking for some sort of |
| 10 |
pre-release. Which they won't find. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
The whole point is to make it clearer to the user the relation of the |
| 13 |
sources to upstream. Instead of making them fit into our naming schema, |
| 14 |
which do not apply to all. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Now granted at least on the Java front we have discussed coming up with |
| 17 |
documents. We have a start of one, How to be a good upstream |
| 18 |
http://overlays.gentoo.org/proj/java/wiki/How_to_be_a_good_upstream |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Which we do need to make a section regarding package naming, tagging |
| 21 |
sources and etc. With examples and so on. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Also keep in mind the _dev one I believe stems from Apache's own release |
| 24 |
policies. Which they have a considerable amount of packages, so it's not |
| 25 |
something that would only fit a small subset. IE Tomcat, mod_jk, etc. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
The whole idea is better clarification to the end user via package name. |
| 28 |
Instead of package being tagged as _pre or etc, and sources being tagged |
| 29 |
with -dev and/or coming from a developers space. Not main project |
| 30 |
release page or etc. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
William L. Thomson Jr. |
| 34 |
Gentoo/Java |
Archives