2015-02-24 15:30 GMT+01:00 Richard Hipp <d...@sqlite.org>: > 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 >
Along the time it has changed a couple of time: until (included): 20110101030647 it was YYYYMMDDhhmm for both the tarbal and the directory inside then it became YYYYMMMDDhhmmss for both the tarbal and the directory inside and with the last one it is YYYYMMMDDhhmmss for the tarbal and YYYYMMDDhhmm for the directory inside. The last version is the less convenient for a package maintainer imho. Regards, Bapt _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
