Re: Package naming conventions

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Raphaël Enrici [mailto:blacknoz(at)club-internet(dot)fr]
> Sent: 08 August 2003 14:53
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: pgadmin-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Package naming conventions
>
>
>
> I Totally agree with Dave. But don't you think we could go
> further ? As
> you just renamed files, the informations concerning the packages are
> still what they were when it was released :
> for example :

Urgh. didn't realise that info was in the RPMs. It's not in the Win32 or Slackware releases.

> rpm -qpi pgadmin3-0.9.0.i586.rpm
> Name : pgadmin3 Relocations: (not
> relocateable)
> Version : 0.9 Vendor: (none)
> Release : 20030806 Build Date: Wed Aug 6
> 18:28:01 2003Install date: (not installed) Build Host:
> mandrake.translationforge.com

> pgadmin3-x.y.z-0.m+cvsYYYYMMDD-n whith x.y.z equal to

I think the x.y.z is redundant. We don't use the build number for snapshots, so the date should suffice on it's own.

Regards, Dave.