On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Darryl L. Pierce <dpie...@redhat.com>wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 02:41:24PM -0400, Rafael Schloming wrote:
> > Hi Everyone,
> >
> > I've posted an initial release candidate here:
> >
> >   http://people.apache.org/~rhs/qpid-proton-0.1/
> >
> > Please keep in mind there hasn't been a wide variety of install testing
> so
> > go ahead and try on as many different OS distro/versions as you can find
> > and let me know if/when things break.
> Well done. I do have a request on the release tarball, though. Can we
> fix the filenames and internal directories? The qpid-proton-c-$VERSION file
> contains proton-c-$VERSION as the root directory, which makes the
> specfile choke.

I'll update the internal directories to match.

> What I'd like to see would be to have qpid-proton and qpid-proton-java
> as the two source tarballs if possible. That way I can keep the RPM
> named qpid-proton (I would rather not put -c into the name).

I'm not so sure about this one. I think at some point we might want
qpid-proton for something else, e.g. an independently distributed python
interface definition and test suite. Why does the source tarball force a
particular RPM name?


Reply via email to