Ken Moffat wrote:
On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 04:37:46PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
[email protected] wrote:
Missing biblatex-2.9a.tds.tgz
Ken,
Looking at this page I also see biblatex-biber.tar.gz. We already had one
of these in the system, but the present one is a different size and (of
course) md5sum. How is a user supposed to know what's current?
It's really not acceptable to have the same name but different directories.
I know this is an upstream issue, but can you ask them to make a properly
versioned tarball?
-- Bruce
I can try, but I very much suspect that the answer will be along
the lines of "the directories are versioned" - i.e. both the
directory from which we download, and the directory name in the
tarball.
For my local copies, I have renamed them to -1.8, -1.9. Would that
be a suitable workaround for an LFS copy ? We do already keep our
own copies of packages taken from git. In any case, I doubt
that upstream will care to rename an existing tarball.
I know. Logic usually often does not prevail. Once it's downloaded,
you have to do something special to see what version you have instead of
just looking at the file name.
Our problem is that we need to look at collectively about 800 packages.
Doing something special is a PITA, especially if we try to script a
check for the latest versions.
github is a special problem in that they like to have all teir releases
named v<something>, i.e. libical-1.0.1 is named v1.0.1.tar.gz, not to be
confused with libvdpau which has the tarball name v0.3.4.tar.gz.
sourceforge is a pain to script too, but at least the tarballs (usually)
have decent names.
-- Bruce
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-book
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
