[gentoo-dev] Release files/portage snapshots auxiliary files naming scheme

Posted: 08-10-2005, 11:30 AM

Henrik Brix Andersen

Guest
Posts: n/a

Hi,

Currently the files that accompany our release files (ISO images,
stages) are named in the following scheme:

*.asc for GPG signatures
*.md5 for MD5 sums

while the files that accompany our portage snapshots are named:

*.gpgsig for GPG signatures
*.md5sum for MD5 sums

I suggest we unify the naming scheme to the one currently in use by our
release files to avoid unnecessary confusion amongst our end-users -
unless of course there is a good reason for having different naming
schemes for release files and portage snapshots?

Sincerely,
Brix
--
Henrik Brix Andersen <brix@gentoo.org>
Gentoo Metadistribution | Mobile computing herd

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBC+dcOv+Q4flTiePgRAsBVAJ9TKPdrcslf3LJzzFQsfL T4KuOdxgCcCraY
vBYYufPeL6SoKUXm0zbq8jg=
=rJwr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Responses to "[gentoo-dev] Release files/portage snapshots auxiliary files naming scheme"

Andrew Muraco

Guest
Posts: n/a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Release files/portage snapshots auxiliary files naming scheme

Posted: 08-10-2005, 11:40 AM

Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:

>Hi,
>
>Currently the files that accompany our release files (ISO images,
>stages) are named in the following scheme:
>
> *.asc for GPG signatures
> *.md5 for MD5 sums
>
>while the files that accompany our portage snapshots are named:
>
> *.gpgsig for GPG signatures
> *.md5sum for MD5 sums
>
>I suggest we unify the naming scheme to the one currently in use by our
>release files to avoid unnecessary confusion amongst our end-users -
>unless of course there is a good reason for having different naming
>schemes for release files and portage snapshots?
>
>Sincerely,
>Brix
>
>

Don't you think its a bit trival, but on the other hand, yes i agree
that unifying them wouldnt be a bad thing, its just a matter of getting
it done, and updating the documentation to reflect the changes (minor
changes :-P)

I say 'Do it.'
----------------------------
Andrew Muraco
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Simon Stelling

Guest
Posts: n/a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Release files/portage snapshots auxiliary files naming scheme

Posted: 08-10-2005, 12:40 PM

Hi,

Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:

> I suggest we unify the naming scheme to the one currently in use by our
> release files to avoid unnecessary confusion amongst our end-users -
> unless of course there is a good reason for having different naming
> schemes for release files and portage snapshots?

Personally I don't know a good reason either for or against a change. I
can't see how one would be confused with different names, so I'd suggest
just leave everything as is. If you're going to make the change I won't
stop you, as long as you don't ask me to do it ;P

Regards,

--
Simon Stelling
Gentoo/AMD64 Operational Co-Lead
blubb@gentoo.org
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Marius Mauch

Guest
Posts: n/a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Release files/portage snapshots auxiliary files naming scheme

Posted: 08-10-2005, 11:10 PM

Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Currently the files that accompany our release files (ISO images,
> stages) are named in the following scheme:
>
> *.asc for GPG signatures
> *.md5 for MD5 sums
>
> while the files that accompany our portage snapshots are named:
>
> *.gpgsig for GPG signatures
> *.md5sum for MD5 sums
>
> I suggest we unify the naming scheme to the one currently in use by our
> release files to avoid unnecessary confusion amongst our end-users -
> unless of course there is a good reason for having different naming
> schemes for release files and portage snapshots?

Not against unification, but using the snapshot format would probably be
the easier way, as emerge-webrsync (and maybe other tools) need at
least the md5sum files for verification. And while changing that is
trivial, deploying that change can take a long time.

Marius
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Henrik Brix Andersen

Guest
Posts: n/a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Release files/portage snapshots auxiliary files naming scheme

Posted: 08-11-2005, 08:20 AM

On Thu, 2005-08-11 at 00:11 +0300, Marius Mauch wrote:

> Not against unification, but using the snapshot format would probably be
> the easier way, as emerge-webrsync (and maybe other tools) need at
> least the md5sum files for verification. And while changing that is
> trivial, deploying that change can take a long time.

Right you are.

Releng, what do you think?

Regards,
Brix
--
Henrik Brix Andersen <brix@gentoo.org>
Gentoo Metadistribution | Mobile computing herd

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBC+vrrv+Q4flTiePgRAsL6AKCGsMgzlrfY7Sd+2Z69jA kDF4oZHQCfT7u8
b3j84j6GzAuraKPZw5hR1Fo=
=N3on
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Display Modes

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads You may post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts BB code is On Smilies are Off [IMG] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are On Pingbacks are On Refbacks are On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
[gentoo-dev] Naming scheme confusion	Henrik Brix Andersen	Gentoo Linux	8	05-21-2005 10:10 AM
[gentoo-dev] digest-* files in portage tree	Francesco Riosa	Gentoo Linux	12	03-27-2005 03:40 AM
[gentoo-dev] using one portage tree for development and portage itself	William Hubbs	Gentoo Linux	5	10-24-2004 06:30 PM
[gentoo-dev] New portage tool: app-portage/metagen	Rob Cakebread	Gentoo Linux	0	08-23-2004 05:30 PM
[gentoo-dev] big files in portage (fwd)	Michael Sterrett -Mr. Bones.-	Gentoo Linux	7	07-15-2004 03:00 PM