RE: Test/Prototypical Repository
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.orgmsgId=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
RE: Test/Prototypical Repository
Not quite. The log4j-1.2.8.zip binary should be log4j-1.2.8-bin.zip according to http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?ASFRepository/JavaArtifacts I would expect the log4j 1.2.8 release (with debug versions of jars and binaries) to look something like: apache/ (organisation) log4j/ (project) latest/ - symlink to 1.2.8 1.2.8/ (version) binaries/ log4j-1.2.8-bin.tar.gz log4j-1.2.8-bin.tar.gz.md5 log4j-1.2.8-bin.tar.gz.pgp log4j-1.2.8-dbg-bin.tar.gz log4j-1.2.8-dbg-bin.tar.gz.md5 log4j-1.2.8-dbg-bin.tar.gz.pgp log4j-1.2.8-bin.zip log4j-1.2.8-bin.zip.md5 log4j-1.2.8-bin.zip.pgp log4j-1.2.8-dbg-bin.zip log4j-1.2.8-dbg-bin.zip.md5 log4j-1.2.8-dbg-bin.zip.pgp source/ log4j-1.2.8-src.tar.gz log4j-1.2.8-src.tar.gz.md5 log4j-1.2.8-src.tar.gz.pgp log4j-1.2.8-src.zip log4j-1.2.8-src.zip.md5 log4j-1.2.8-src.zip.pgp jars/ log4j-1.2.8.jar log4j-1.2.8.jar.md5 log4j-1.2.8.jar.pgp log4j-1.2.8-dbg.jar log4j-1.2.8-dbg.jar.md5 log4j-1.2.8-dbg.jar.pgp pgp/ KEYS licenses/ LICENSES.txt - Tim From: Adam R. B. Jack [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, 25 November 2003 6:25 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Test/Prototypical Repository All, As a way to force me to review the specification and attempt to implement I've started a knock up repository at: http://www.apache.org/~ajack/testrepo [If we think this is a good idea we can ask infrastructure@ for a location we can all write to.] Can folks tell me if this repository fits the specification? I had problem with the top part. regards Adam -- Experience Sybase Technology... http://www.try.sybase.com
Re: Test/Prototypical Repository
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]msgId=1124258 Cheers, Ben Adam R. B. Jack wrote: All, As a way to force me to review the specification and attempt to implement I've started a knock up repository at: http://www.apache.org/~ajack/testrepo [If we think this is a good idea we can ask infrastructure@ for a location we can all write to.] Can folks tell me if this repository fits the specification? I had problem with the top part. regards Adam -- Experience Sybase Technology... http://www.try.sybase.com
