On 2/24/15, robotanarchy <robotanar...@bingo-ev.de> wrote: > Hello Fossil developers, > > I was building the fossil binary yesterday and I've noticed that the > names of the tarballs aren't very userfriendly. > > As I see it, there are two tarballs that one could use, one is from the > downloads page [1] and one is by using some strange SHA1 hash of the > release, as in the Arch Linux package [3]. > > When downloading file [1], you'll get an archive that has a different > file name than the included folder. The folder has different numbers > at the end: > > fossil-src-201502231627
That's the date: 2015-02-23 16:27 Providing a date on the filename seems (to me) a lot more useful than a random SHA1 hash. > > My point is that all filenames don't contain the actual version name, > which would be the really helpful information here. Could you please > change the names to the following format (or at least provide these > additionally)? > > > Name of the tarball: fossil-$version.tar.gz > Name of folder in tarball: fossil-$version > > > Also thanks for making Fossil, I use it a lot! > > Kind regards, > robotanarchy > > > > [1]:https://www.fossil-scm.org/download/fossil-src-20150223162734.tar.gz > [2]:https://www.fossil-scm.org/download.html > [3]:https://projects.archlinux.org/svntogit/community.git/tree/trunk/PKGBUILD?h=packages/fossil > _______________________________________________ > fossil-users mailing list > fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org > http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users > -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
