2008/12/23, Rob Hamerling <[email protected]>: > > > > Jallib-pack seems OK to me. I would add an indication about the jallib > version and the compiler version in the name of the package file, for > example: Jallib-pack-24i-0.1 Okay with me
> I don't like that the directory structure of the current download > packages have a fixed base directory (\jallib-0.1beta). I prefer much > more the Firefox way, namely a release independent name, in our case > \Jallib, or even better no base directory at all and only a 'relative' > subdirectory structure. Advantage is much easier migration: rename the > old jallib and create a new Jallib. No makefiles, batchfiles or other > scripts to change with each new version. > I strongly agree on this! Joep --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jallib" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jallib?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
