On Sat, 2007-03-17 at 00:11 +0100, Carsten Lohrke wrote: > There's absolutely no reason to absorb every single version naming scheme on > earth. Gentoo's does work nicely and more than we have would only be > irritating to the user. Simply use _pre<datecode> or whatever fits, but > extending our naming scheme is unneeded and pointless.
Well that's the problem. When I use say _pre instead of _dev it gives off the wrong impression to users judging package by it's name. Since it's not a pre-release. A user may go upstream looking for some sort of pre-release. Which they won't find. The whole point is to make it clearer to the user the relation of the sources to upstream. Instead of making them fit into our naming schema, which do not apply to all. Now granted at least on the Java front we have discussed coming up with documents. We have a start of one, How to be a good upstream http://overlays.gentoo.org/proj/java/wiki/How_to_be_a_good_upstream Which we do need to make a section regarding package naming, tagging sources and etc. With examples and so on. Also keep in mind the _dev one I believe stems from Apache's own release policies. Which they have a considerable amount of packages, so it's not something that would only fit a small subset. IE Tomcat, mod_jk, etc. The whole idea is better clarification to the end user via package name. Instead of package being tagged as _pre or etc, and sources being tagged with -dev and/or coming from a developers space. Not main project release page or etc. -- William L. Thomson Jr. Gentoo/Java
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
