On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Baptiste Daroussin <
baptiste.darous...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2015-02-24 15:30 GMT+01:00 Richard Hipp <d...@sqlite.org>:
> > On 2/24/15, robotanarchy <robotanar...@bingo-ev.de> wrote:
> >> 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.
>
Looking at the CLI docs for "tar":
> Usage: fossil tarball VERSION OUTPUTFILE [--name DIRECTORYNAME]
[-R|--repository REPO]
>
> Generate a compressed tarball for a specified version. If the --name
> option is used, its argument becomes the name of the top-level directory
> in the resulting tarball. If --name is omitted, the top-level directory
> named is derived from the project name, the check-in date and time, and
> the artifact ID of the check-in.
It talks about generating a name for the top-level directory, but not the
tar file. The implication being that the tar file name must be explicitly
supplied.
But, in any case, Mr robotanarchy seems to be requesting that the official
release tar file be created with, for example:
fossil tarball version-1.31 fossil-src-1_31.tar.gz --name
fossil-src-1_31
to make it easier to identify the released versions.
_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
