> From: Ben Walding [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, 25 November 2003 9:03 AM
>
> I'm still not convinced that "binaries" is better than "binary" as a
> type directory.
>
> See my original comments that must have lost in the ether (section 2) -
> http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> che.org&msgId=1124258
>
[snip]
"binaries" matches existing ASF practices, for both java and C
distributions.
Also, the directory name need not be reflected in the artifact extension -
the directory is there simply to group similar artifacts.
The proposals no longer refer to a 'type' directory.
E.g, for java artifacts [1], artifact-specifier is:
artifact-specifier = java-artifact-specifier
java-artifact-specifier = jar-artifact | war-artifact| rar-artifact
| ear-artifact | tld-artifact | javadoc-artifact
jar-artifact = "jars" "/" versioned-artifact-name ".jar"
war-artifact = "wars" "/" versioned-artifact-name ".war"
rar-artifact = "rars" "/" versioned-artifact-name ".rar"
ear-artifact = "ears" "/" versioned-artifact-name ".ear"
tld-specifier = "tlds" "/" versioned-artifact-name ".tld"
javadoc-artifact = "docs" "/" versioned-artifact-name
"-javadoc" "." arc-ext
arc-ext = "tar.gz" | "zip" | "bzip2" | ...
-Tim
[1] http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?ASFRepository/JavaArtifacts
