On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 05:18:12PM +0200, Andriy Gapon wrote: > on 20/03/2012 16:39 Baptiste Daroussin said the following: > > On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 07:20:52AM -0500, Chuck Burns wrote: > >> We should probably pad the version number, and shorten things up.. > >> similar to: > >> > >> package-1.2-fbsd09.1-x86.pkg > >> package-1.2-fbsd09.1-x64.pkg > >> package-1.2-fbsd09.1-ppc.pkg > >> package-1.2-fbsd09.1-ppc64.pkg > >> package-1.2-fbsd09.1-arm.pkg > >> > >> For app "Package" version 1.2, on FreeBSD 9.1 > >> drop the .1 for .0 versions. > >> > >> The reason for the padding is to help with sorting, at least until > >> freebsd 100.0 comes out. :P > >> > >> Chuck Burns > >> > > > > I'm not on changing the package name, this information will be in the manifest. > > > > the packagename will remain name-version.txz > > So no plans for cross-arch package repos? :) > IMO, it could be useful to reflect arch metadata in the package name. > BTW, some packaging systems also have a "noarch" indicator for packages that > contain purely stuff like documentation or images (or shell scripts, etc). This is then plan except that I prefer calling it "any" than "noarch" :) No need to change the package name for that. If you want the package name to reflect the real abi it will be from far too long :) The indication is in the the repository metadata, it is enough most of the time, if we are on adding it to the package name what do you want to see in ? OS? majorversion? arch? 32/64bits? incompatible abi/extension? You will get the same problem that I'm trying to solve except that it will gives you very very long package names. regards, Bapt
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:25 UTC