Re: Package naming conventions

Dave Page wrote:

>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Jean-Michel POURE [mailto:jm(at)poure(dot)com]
>>Sent: 09 August 2003 21:56
>>To: Raphaël Enrici; Dave Page
>>Cc: pgadmin-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
>>Subject: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Package naming conventions
>>
>>
>>
>>Dear friends,
>>
>>Raphaël wrote me that the required wxWindows version was
>>20030707, this is OK
>>for me. To sum up the RPM thing which differs slightlly from Debian:
>>

Dear Jean Michel,

You were right and I was wrong, it's now 20030722, I'll launch my builds
tomorrow.

>>1) CVS snapshots are numbered:
>>pgadmin3-{version}-cvs{date}.rpm
>>pgadmin3-0.9.0-cvs20030809.rpm
>>2) FTP uploads are numbered:
>>pgadmin3-{version}-{build}.rpm
>>pgadmin3-0.9.0-1.rpm
>>
>>Build should be 1, 2, 3, etc...
>>When you release a new {version}, the {build} goes back to 1.
>>Agreed? On your reply, I will rebuild the packages.
>>Cheers, Jean-Michel
>>
>>
>Sounds good to me. Not sure the cvs in the snapshot names is needed, but I don't think it hurts.
>
>
It's ok for me and really near from what is done on Debian, I like it
:). Dave, the cvs information can have its importance when the package
is found in an official distro, to distinguish the build from a fully
"stable" one. I found quite a lot of package versioned like that in
debian and think it's easy to read and as you said it doesn't hurt.

Cheers,

Raphaël