On 3/14/2013 11:04 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Mar 14 04:54, Yaakov wrote:
On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 10:41:47 +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Mar 13 21:01, Yaakov wrote:
- For uploading packages it's important to know where the new package
has to go. Therefore, IMHO, it would make sense to change to a new
package naming scheme, preferedly compatible with the versioning
mechanism in upset, supported by cygport and easily recognizable by
uploaders or upload scripts.
Linux distros typically use the architecture after the version number:
package-foo-1.2.3-4.i686.tar.bz2
package-bar-5-6-7.noarch.tar.bz2
we are, almost, already using this scheme for src packages,
so it will be more consistent and clear (IMHO)
However, for backward compatiblity with the current mechanism, would it
make sense to reorder it for Cygwin packages like so:
package-foo-i686-1.2.3-4.tar.bz2
package-bar-noarch-5.6-7.tar.bz2
Nack. IIUC this form would confuse upset/setup/cygcheck to no end.
And the first form wouldn't? I would love to see this form used,
but I was actually thinking this would result in more confusion...
Corinna
Marco
