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

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

[Henrik Brix Andersen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 671 bytes --]

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

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

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

[Andrew Muraco]

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

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

[Simon Stelling]

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

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

[Marius Mauch]

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

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

[Henrik Brix Andersen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 494 bytes --]

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

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]