Re: Re: Version naming

Lukas Smith wrote:

Anatoly Techtonik wrote:

Hello Lukas,

Also will PEAR redistribute alpha and beta packages in .tgz format? What is file naming convention in this case?

I don't understand the question.

LS> currently the state is not part of the .tgz name. LS> Adding the state was one of the intentions of the original RFC, but LS> people didnt like having it in the version name and some people dont LS> like it being in the .tgz name. Why not to have status information in .tgz? Do tell me it is inconvenient to know what status has downloaded package? Esp. if there are two or more different versions downloaded into one directory.

I dont know honestly .. there were some comments in that direction a month or so ago on this list. Try searching for that in the archive.

$ pear info Package-1.3.5.tgz putting it in the name is unnecessary, and complicates things. I've written 448 unit tests so far for the installer, and am only about 75% of the way through. Adding this would cause a serious amount of extra validation. I would have to allow Package-version-state Package-state-version Package-version Package-state and would have to not allow Package-version-version Package-state-state The server side would also become much more complicated, and since the question of "how stable is this package" can be answered by the use of pear info and pear remote-info, I see no benefit in adding this extra work. I haven't even started to tackle the web frontend - considering how long this will take, any features that are even slightly complicated will have to wait. Greg