Robert Leslie writes (Re: New ftp method for dselect):
Exceptions: (the ones I saw, anyway)
stable/binary/net/bind-4.9.3-BETA24-1.deb
debian-1.0/binary/net/bind-4.9.3-BETA26-2.deb
If there are no objections I think I will rename the next version of the bind
package to something
On Wed, 20 Dec 1995, Bruce Perens wrote:
I we can either rename existing packages, or use the double-dash. I don't
care which. ...
The most reasonable approach seems to me (of course) to be the one
which I've been arguing -- a naming standard very close to current
practice, minimizing
From: Bill Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'd accept such a proclimation from you, barring opposition from Ian M.
I'm not going to make a proclamation this time. I'm going on vacation.
I didn't want to return to the same situation, though :-) . I was hoping
that I'd be able to upload my remaining
Bill Mitchell writes:
The most reasonable approach seems to me (of course) to be the one
which I've been arguing -- a naming standard very close to current
practice, minimizing package renaming, and minimizing mangling of
upstream naming and versioning.
Let me throw another idea in the pot. A
Once we decide on a package naming standard, we should tell the
rest of the free software world what it is and encourage the
upstream maintainers to stick to that format.
Tell them without asking for comments? :-) [What was that about
committees?]
I lean towards Bill Mitchell's idea.
Brian White:
(the above is csh code... sorry!)
I've not been following this discussion very closely, but here's a
fairly literal translation of Brian's speedup to sh:
for FILE in `sed -e 's/\(.*\)-\([^-]*\)-\([^.-]*\)\.\([^-]*\)$/\1/\2/\3/\4/'`
do (
set `echo $FILE|tr / ' '`
Personally, I also think we'll be better off if we bite the bullet and
try to maintain as much backwards compatability as we can with current
package naming usage than if we fall into a pattern of blowing off
backwards compatability issues in the interest of implementor convenience.
What
On Tue, 19 Dec 1995, Bruce Perens wrote:
[...]
What programs are we talking about being compatible with? Not dselect or
dpkg, which don't care about the filename. I'd hazard that dchanges would
be easy to fix. Dftp would ask for the feature, as would the dselect
FTP method.
Am I missing
Fernando Alegre [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
[...] the whole sunsite and tsx archives, which
store packages with an almost standard format. Even though they are not
Debian packages right now, some (many?) could be in the future. And the
debianized name should be as close to the upstream name
A mostly-compatable compromise would seem to be:
[...]
Extension: May contain any printable chars.
If the extension can contain dashes, once again it could cause parsing
problems. Eliminating dashes (or dots, for that matter) here would
again make it fit into a regular expression.
brian (b.c.) white [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
If the extension can contain dashes, once again it could cause parsing
problems. Eliminating dashes (or dots, for that matter) here would
again make it fit into a regular expression.
Yup. Thanks for pointing that out. EXT should disallow dashes.
Yup. Thanks for pointing that out. EXT should disallow dashes.
The following seems to (slowly) parse all packages in a fairly old
available file which I have handy as is apparently intended by the
debian package maintainer, with the exception of
elisp-manual-19-2.4-1.tar.gz (is -19
Since I don't really have anything invested in this debate, I'll
throw in my last two cents and shut up. It seems to me that
changing the very few packages which don't already conform to such
a naming scheme would be much less disruptive than renaming every
package.
Also, a cheap
Someone (David?) said:
It seems to me that
changing the very few packages which don't already conform to such
a naming scheme would be much less disruptive than renaming every
package.
From: Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Also, a cheap workaround for any existing dependency problems would be
OK, so package file names don't parse easily. Why couldn't the cross
reference be included in the Packages file? It's needed by dselect
anyway. Also, what about packages like ld.so where the file name
doesn't match the package name (ldso)? What am I missing?
You're not missing anything.
Dirk Eddelbuettel writes (supercite undone - iwj):
[Ian Jackson writes:]
Right. In order to avoid having to rename lots of packages or change
their version numbers I propose the following naming scheme for files
on the FTP site in the `binary' directory:
Bill Mitchell writes (Re: New ftp method for dselect):
dchanges(1) seems to parse distribution filenames OK, though the
parsing code is pretty ugly. If it's broken, please let me know.
Seems to do it OK isn't good enough - we need something unambiguous
and predictable.
Ian.
David Engel writes (Re: New ftp method for dselect):
OK, so package file names don't parse easily. Why couldn't the cross
reference be included in the Packages file? It's needed by dselect
anyway. Also, what about packages like ld.so where the file name
doesn't match the package name (ldso
(Replying to my own message -- bad, I know...)
3) Both version-strings and package-names may contain dashes so dashes
cannot be used to flawlessly determine where versions revisions are.
I looked into this more closely and it seems that most of the packages
that once had dashes in the version
Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Bill Mitchell writes (Re: New ftp method for dselect):
dchanges(1) seems to parse distribution filenames OK, though the
parsing code is pretty ugly. If it's broken, please let me know.
Seems to do it OK isn't good enough - we need something
Exceptions: (the ones I saw, anyway)
stable/binary/net/bind-4.9.3-BETA24-1.deb
debian-1.0/binary/net/bind-4.9.3-BETA26-2.deb
If there are no objections I think I will rename the next version of the bind
package to something like:
bind-4.9.3BETA26-3.*
Hopefully this will be
brian (b.c.) white [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I looked into this more closely and it seems that most of the packages
that once had dashes in the version stings are now gone. If neither
the version nor revision strings can have dashes, then counting -'s
will break up the filename without having
From: Bill Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Personally, I also think we'll be better off if we bite the bullet and
try to maintain as much backwards compatability as we can with current
package naming usage than if we fall into a pattern of blowing off
backwards compatability issues in the interest
...
filenames have the form PKG-VER-REV.EXT
e.g.: ab-cd-1.23a-45678.tar.gz
Field Separators:- - .
Field Contents: ab-cd 1.23a 45678 tar.gz
...
- Counting to the right from that point, the first '.' encountered
Bruce Perens writes (Re: New ftp method for dselect):
I used Andy Guy's FTP method for dselect to upgrade a bunch of ELF
packages automaticaly this evening. It worked very well, and even
detected corrupt and partially-downloaded packages when I used a kernel
with networking problems.
Good
Ian Jackson writes:
Ian Right. In order to avoid having to rename lots of packages or change
Ian their version numbers I propose the following naming scheme for files
Ian on the FTP site in the `binary' directory:
Ian
Ian package-name--version[-revision].deb
Ian
Ian Note the
I could make the bootstrap floppies support an FTP installation if you
would do the work necessary to integrate this method into dselect.
To do this you need a package naming standard - perhaps a deviation from
your plan, but easy enough to do and it would be of great benefit to us
in
I missed the first part of this thread. Sorry. What is the resoning
for this drastic change?
Distribution file names don't parse at the moment because you can't
disambiguate the package name from the version number. I had suggested
that we standardize package names so that FTP scripts
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Engel)
OK, so package file names don't parse easily. Why couldn't the cross
reference be included in the Packages file? It's needed by dselect
anyway. Also, what about packages like ld.so where the file name
doesn't match the package name (ldso)? What am I
David Engel wrote:
OK, so package file names don't parse easily. Why couldn't the cross
reference be included in the Packages file? It's needed by dselect
anyway. Also, what about packages like ld.so where the file name
doesn't match the package name (ldso)? What am I missing?
Working
30 matches
Mail list logo
