Mailing List Archive: Release files/portage snapshots auxiliary files naming scheme

Release files/portage snapshots auxiliary files naming scheme

Aug 10, 2005, 3:29 AM

Post #1 of 5 (198 views)

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

Re: Release files/portage snapshots auxiliary files naming scheme [ In reply to ]

tuxp3 at leetworks

Aug 10, 2005, 3:33 AM

Post #2 of 5 (197 views)

Permalink

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: Release files/portage snapshots auxiliary files naming scheme [ In reply to ]

blubb at gentoo

Aug 10, 2005, 4:30 AM

Post #3 of 5 (199 views)

Permalink

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: Release files/portage snapshots auxiliary files naming scheme [ In reply to ]

genone at gentoo

Aug 10, 2005, 2:11 PM

Post #4 of 5 (201 views)

Permalink

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: Release files/portage snapshots auxiliary files naming scheme [ In reply to ]

brix at gentoo

Aug 11, 2005, 12:14 AM

Post #5 of 5 (202 views)

Permalink

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

Mailing List Archive

Attached Files:

Attached Files: