Re: [MinGW-dvlpr] New binutils

[Chris S. <ir0...@gm...>]

On 19 June 2010 05:35, Keith Marshall wrote:
> On Saturday 19 June 2010 06:14:28 Charles Wilson wrote:
>> > I've taken it one step further and grabbed the latest make CVS
>> > which has an additional Windows specific fix from Eli.  From a
>> > packaging aspect, I have the following:
>> >
>> > make-3.81.90-20100618-1-mingw32-src.tar.lzma
>> > make-3.81.90-20100618-1-mingw32-bin.tar.lzma
>> >
>> > Is the date and a release number in the filename going to cause
>> > issues?
>>
>> ...
>>
>> I usually interpret the package version to mean "the upstream
>> source version" -- so you probably want "3.81.90_20100618" (with an
>> underscore) instead.  That way the Package Build is "1".
>
> >From mingw-get's perspective, either is acceptable, (or should be).

> From a stylistic perspective, I personally prefer the form Chris has
> proposed.  Pragmatically, if it represents a formal snapshot released
> on yesterday's date, BY THE UPSTREAM PROJECT, then I can accept an
> argument in favour of Chuck's style; if, (as I understand it), it is
> simply Chris' own informal ad-hoc snapshot, built from upstream CVS
> HEAD, then perhaps Chris' naming style is to be preferred.

I prefer the way it would be parsed as it stands:

Package Build:     20100618-1

As Keith pointed out, this is an unofficial snapshot from CVS that I
pulled to capture an additional fix from Eli.

> Just my immediate thoughts on the matter; perhaps, for sake of future
> consistency, we should formalise it?

Agreed, it will ease confusion going forward.

Chris

-- 
Chris Sutcliffe
http://emergedesktop.org
http://www.google.com/profiles/ir0nh34d