[GRASSLIST:3697] Re: GRASS 5.7.0

[Jean-Denis Giguere]

Radim Blazek wrote:

>http://grass.itc.it/grass57/source/grass-5.7.0.tar.gz
>
>My suggestion for binary names is to follow rpm conventions (if there are any?):
>grass-5.7.0-<binary_version>.<OS/distribution>.<OS/distribution version>.<HW>.tar.gz
>
>For example:
>grass-5.7.0-1.suse9.0.i686.tar.gz
>grass-5.7.0-1.redhat7.2.i386.tar.gz
>grass-5.7.0-3.solaris7.6.sparc.tar.gz
>
>Radim
>
>  
>
This is a good idea ! What do you think of this minor modification ?

This is the rpm naming convention
http://www.rpm.org/max-rpm/ch-rpm-file-format.html#S1-RPM-FILE-FORMAT-FILE-NAMING-CONVENTION

Also LSB suggest the following naming convention
http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/refspecs/LSB_1.2.0/gLSB/pkgnameconv.html

Both have some limitations.

The maximum rpm spec doesn't explain how to maintain information about 
the distribution. And the LSB represent a lot of work and is quite 
inhabitual.

I think that could modify the suggest rpm naming convention

/name/-/version/-/release/./architecture/.rpm

to add on the <os/distribution tag>

name-version-realease.distribution.architecture

For exemple : 
grass-5.7.0-1.suse.i686.tar.gz
grass-5.7.0-1.redhat.i386.tar.gz

I think the concept of distribution version is hard to maintain and is only valuable in system using only original rpm.
The system of dependencies of rpm is good enough to find what is needed to install package.

If the objective is to allow same distro, but different libraries version to get the package. Maybye it will be more usefull to specify which dependencies make possible to install this rpm for fedora in core 2, but not core 1, by exemple.
(Is it glibc ? is it tcltk ?)


Regards,

Jean-Denis