Hi,
I started improving the scripts for the bindist. More on this later.
While working on the scripts, I came across the following problem: there are a few packages which still use the "old" naming scheme foo-1.2-1. This is fine as long as these files do not define an epoch. However for two packages in 10.3/stable and six in 10.2-gcc3.3 tree this is the case (see below for full list). This makes the parsing harder.
Any objections if I rename these packages using the new naming scheme?
Well, kinda. You really shouldn't be trying to parse the filenames to divine information. The information inside the info is always canonical, the filename shouldn't really matter.
Also, while the new naming convention is preferred, it is not a requirement. The old convention needs to continue to exist specifically for the purpose of having multiple versions of a package in the tree at once (say, postgresql 7.2 and 7.3 both need to be in the tree so that people can install 7.2 to dump their old databases...)
-- Benjamin Reed a.k.a. Ranger Rick -- http://ranger.befunk.com/ gpg: 6401 D02A A35F 55E9 D7DD 71C5 52EF A366 D3F6 65FE "You CAN'T clean the toilet, Neil, it'll lose all it's character!" -- Vyvyan
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
