From: | "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> |
---|---|
To: | Raphaël Enrici <blacknoz(at)club-internet(dot)fr> |
Cc: | <pgadmin-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Package naming conventions |
Date: | 2003-08-08 13:59:14 |
Message-ID: | 03AF4E498C591348A42FC93DEA9661B844B401@mail.vale-housing.co.uk |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgadmin-hackers |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Raphaël Enrici [mailto:blacknoz(at)club-internet(dot)fr]
> Sent: 08 August 2003 14:53
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: pgadmin-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Package naming conventions
>
>
>
> I Totally agree with Dave. But don't you think we could go
> further ? As
> you just renamed files, the informations concerning the packages are
> still what they were when it was released :
> for example :
Urgh. didn't realise that info was in the RPMs. It's not in the Win32 or Slackware releases.
> rpm -qpi pgadmin3-0.9.0.i586.rpm
> Name : pgadmin3 Relocations: (not
> relocateable)
> Version : 0.9 Vendor: (none)
> Release : 20030806 Build Date: Wed Aug 6
> 18:28:01 2003Install date: (not installed) Build Host:
> mandrake.translationforge.com
> pgadmin3-x.y.z-0.m+cvsYYYYMMDD-n whith x.y.z equal to
I think the x.y.z is redundant. We don't use the build number for snapshots, so the date should suffice on it's own.
Regards, Dave.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dave Page | 2003-08-08 14:09:55 | Re: Package naming conventions |
Previous Message | Raphaël Enrici | 2003-08-08 13:52:39 | Re: Package naming conventions |