> I think that being able to put this value in the filename can be desired. And
> it's better to have the same format, so `/` is bad.
Even if `\` bas for filenames, we can use it for the format, and separate
`DistTag` with some other symbol lile `.` or `:` in the filename. It would be
ugly, I don't like it, but it is an option for that case.
> In the interest of moving conversations about what character SHOULD be used
> as a separator for DistTag, I point you at the PCRE regex that has been in
> use for almost a decade here.
>
> http://rpm5.org/cvs/fileview?f=rpm/macros/macros.in&v=1.39.2.52
>
> See the 2 (one commented out) definitions of %evr_tuple_match. Both PCRE's as
> written assume a ':' separator for both Epoch and DistTag.
I take look at
%pattern_Disttag ^[A-Za-z0-9]+$
In ALT `.` is a valid symbol for `DistTag` and widely used for now.
> Perhaps, use `:` again? Something like:
> `name-[epoch:]version-release[:disttag].arch` without changing the trailing
> `.arch` to be compatible with those consumers who parse this and expect the
> tail after the last dot to be arch. (They might get the release as
> `release:disttag` after parsing, but as long as this is invalid as a release
> for rpm, that's OK, because they would fail if they tried to use this string
> as a release, and the failure would indicate that they need an upgrade of
> their code.)
I take a look if `:` is good separator but it is valid symbol for `release` for
ALT, so I decided to not using it when I was preparing the PR. But it seems to
be invalid for others and it seems that no package in ALT actually use `:` in
`release`.
@imz @n3npq so you are voting for `:`?
@ignatenkobrain @Conan-Kudo your opinions?
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/589#issuecomment-437644011
_______________________________________________
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint