[GRASSLIST:3706] Re: GRASS 5.7.0

[Radim Blazek]

On Thursday 17 June 2004 17:50, Jean-Denis Giguere wrote:
> >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

> 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. 

That's true, I think that distributed binaries should be built only on 
systems with original rmps and that is the reason why I cannot make 
binaries.

The version of distribution is quite important. For example,
I am sure that GRASS compiled on RadHat9 does not work on RedHat7,
but maybe it could work on SuSe9?

> The system of dependencies of rpm is good enough to find what 
> is needed to install package.

Yes, but I am talking about tar.gz binaries, RPM specification 
was added to GRASS yesterday, so it is in early testing stage, I think,
and we cannot fully rely on it now.

Radim