Hi Rick: On 10/11/07, Richard Mohr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My personal preference is to have the "version" part of the rpm name > accurately reflect the package I am installing. If I see a package > named ganglia-3.0.9-<release>, my expectation is that I am installing > some form of ganglia-3.0.9. In this case, ganglia-3.0.9 doesn't really > exist (in the sense that there is no official tagged ganglia-3.0.9 > version). > > I found this page from the Fedora project about RPM naming that might be > useful: > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines > > I'm not saying that Ganglia needs to follow this convention, but it does > have some good ideas about how to handle rpm names for betas, pre- > releases, snapshots, etc. Basically, it relies on the "release" field > to convey this information while still maintaining a strictly increasing > <version>-<release> number. Maybe one of those ideas could be > used/adapted to address the problem mentioned above. With our current naming convention, simply modifying the "release" field won't fly. Current convention: Release: 3.1.0-1 Snapshot: 3.1.0.200710101608-1 Since "3.1.0.200710101608" > "3.1.0", you will never be able to upgrade the snapshot RPM to the release RPM irregardless of what the release is. You could potentially get around this by using the "epoch", but I personally do not like that. Cheers, Bernard ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ Ganglia-developers mailing list Ganglia-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ganglia-developers
