[sdcc-devel] [ sdcc-Feature Requests-3472159 ] sdcc-3.1.0.tar.bz2 will untar with name sdcc

[SourceForge.net <no...@so...>]

Feature Requests item #3472159, was opened at 2012-01-10 19:23
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by tecodev
You can respond by visiting: 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=350599&aid=3472159&group_id=599

Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread,
including the initial issue submission, for this request,
not just the latest update.
Category: None
Group: None
Status: Open
Priority: 5
Private: No
Submitted By:  rs9562 (rs9562)
Assigned to: Borut Ražem (borutr)
Summary: sdcc-3.1.0.tar.bz2 will untar with name sdcc

Initial Comment:
Somewhere during the 2.5.x series of Linux kernels the untar gave you linux-version.
Previous kernels would untar to the name "linux"

I think sdcc should untar to a name with the version, such as sdcc-3.1.0 instead of sdcc.
As far as I recall back to sdcc-2.5.0 the top of tree was always sdcc.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

>Comment By: Raphael Neider (tecodev)
Date: 2012-07-11 09:04

Message:
For sources I agree that unpacking them to sdcc-<version> is better.

For binaries, I guess this is a matter taste. Unpacking to sdcc-<version>/
allows users to easily test snapshot builds without corrupting known good
setups. Just prepend sdcc-<version>/bin to your PATH and you are set up to
test the new version. I'd like that.

On second thought, I would even prefer releases unpacked into
sdcc-<version>: Unpacking a new SDCC into an old binary tree calls for
trouble if we rename tools/files/directories as the old ones would not be
removed.

For managed installers (windows, debian packages, ...), I would use sdcc/
and make sure to uninstall previously installed versions.

Best regards
Raphael

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Borut Ražem (borutr)
Date: 2012-07-11 08:12

Message:
From the description it is not evidant which tarballs should be unpacked to
sdcc-<version>: src package, binary packages or all of them?

From the Linux analogy I suppose that only the src package destination has
to be renamed. There is also a practical reason against renaming the binary
destination IMHO: I suppose that a majority of users have only one (the
latest) sdcc version istalled. When they upgrade to the new version, the
new version should replace the old one, so there is no need to update the
PATH env. variable. This also decrease the possibility to mess up different
versions: we already have enough problems to find out which version the
user is using...

If somebody wants to use different sdcc versions in parallel he already
knows how to handle it.

Philipp, Maarten and other developerd, I'd like to hear your opoinion.

Borut

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Philipp Klaus Krause (spth)
Date: 2012-07-10 13:46

Message:
I'm sorry, I had just assumed the 3.1.0 tarball was a one-off.

Philipp


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Borut Ražem (borutr)
Date: 2012-07-10 13:02

Message:
It still untar to just sdcc since I forgot about it before making the
release build :-(

I'll update the repack_release.sh script to repack also the src package.
Now the repack_release.sh script prepares the release packages without
assistance (if everything goes well): downloads the snapshot build,
prepares release packages and uploads them to SF file release system.
Maarten, you can try to make the test release from one of snapshots, just
prevent the upload phase by invoking:

$ repack_release.sh -dl -pr <snapshot_date> <snapshot_revision>
<release_version>

Be careful: invoking repack_release.sh without options (-dl, -pr, -ul)
executes all three phases, so you should kill it before it starts
uploading!

You have to have installed makensis binary: on ubuntu you just install nsis
package:

$ sudo apt-get install nsis

This will make you prepared as release manager for the next release ;-)

Borut

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Maarten Brock (maartenbrock)
Date: 2012-07-10 12:17

Message:
Philipp,

Does the 3.2.0 release untar to sdcc-3.2.0 or still to just sdcc?
If not, why did you close this one?

Maarten

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Philipp Klaus Krause (spth)
Date: 2012-07-10 07:44

Message:
Doesn't matter any more, since 3.1.0 is no longer the current release.

Philipp


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Borut Ražem (borutr)
Date: 2012-01-11 04:23

Message:
Recategorised to a feature request.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

You can respond by visiting: 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=350599&aid=3472159&group_id=599