On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Richard Hipp <d...@sqlite.org> wrote:
> On 5/23/15, Joe Prostko <joe.pros...@gmail.com> wrote: > > One thing I noticed is that the source directory name upon > > extracting the tar.gz is different in this release compared to 1.32. > 1.32 > > extracted to fossil-1.32, and 1.33 extracts to fossil-src-1.33. > > Ugh. I was just following the build recipe in the Wiki > (https://www.fossil-scm.org/fossil/wiki?name=Release+Build+How-To) but > maybe I did it wrong. Or maybe the wiki should be more explicit about > exactly what the extraction directory name should be. I dunno. What > do you think? > Honestly, I think the most important thing is to have the tarball filename prefix match the extraction directory, which is the behavior in 1.33. Yes, it did make my life easier to have the 1.32 way of doing things for its Haiku build recipe though. This is due to us extracting the program name and version from the recipe filename itself (ex. fossil-1.32.recipe), and then setting our default, yet overridable expected extraction directory name based off of that. Generally speaking though, I almost always see the tarball filename prefix matching the extracted directory name for pretty much any given project, and I think that is what most would expect when creating their packages. In other words, I suggest keeping it the way it is for 1.33, and just do that going forward. Ideally I'd prefer that the "-src" part be left out of the filename entirely though. Most projects create source tarballs this way, and hence this is why the Haiku recipe builder expects the extraction directory to have a {program}-{version} naming convention. I suppose that could be seen as a bad assumption on our part depending on your perspective though. Anyway, ideally I'd like for the extraction directory to match the tarball filename prefix, and also to not have the "-src" part, but I know you put "-src" in to denote that it is indeed a source archive and not something else. Perhaps Andy Goth or others would like to chime in, but I say keep the 1.33 tarball as it is (fossil-src-1.33.tar.gz extracting to fossil-src-1.33) unless you are willing to get rid of the "-src" and create a new tarball following the same convention for the extraction directory name. (In other words, fossil-1.33.tar.gz extracting to fossil-1.33.) As for the wiki page, I think as long as it is clear that the filename prefix should match the extraction directory name, that should be good enough. (That is, assuming we don't revert to the 1.32 extraction directory naming convention.) I hope I didn't make my explanation too confusing! :) - joe
_______________________________________________ fossil-dev mailing list fossil-dev@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-dev
