Tiny Core Linux

Tiny Core Extensions => TCE Talk => Topic started by: Jason W on November 25, 2009, 04:53:47 PM

Title: -devs vs -dev
Post by: Jason W on November 25, 2009, 04:53:47 PM
We have 50 development extensions with the -dev suffix, and 78 that use -devs.  It makes it hard to remember extension names, having to look it up if, say, I wanted to install the dev package for lesstif but didn't remember if it was lesstif-dev or lesstif-devs. 

Though I used -devs for a long time, my preference would be to settle on -dev and -locale, rather than -devs and -locales.  Let me know if this is not agreeable.  Either way there is a bit of migration. But we do need to standardize on one or the other for the long haul.
Title: Re: -devs vs -dev
Post by: ^thehatsrule^ on November 25, 2009, 05:34:15 PM
Sounds fine.  Same for -libs vs -lib?
Title: Re: -devs vs -dev
Post by: Jason W on November 25, 2009, 06:12:24 PM
Yeah, -dev -lib -locale -doc.  In other words, no longer plural. 
Title: Re: -devs vs -dev
Post by: Kingdomcome on November 25, 2009, 06:37:31 PM
Ive been grumbling quietly to myself about this issue over the past few months but decided it was worth bringing up to the group.  I totally support normalizing to one or the other, although I have no preference on which.
Title: Re: -devs vs -dev
Post by: maro on November 25, 2009, 10:09:39 PM
Good idea!

I'd just like to suggest to give users a heads-up (e.g. via this thread) as you are about to change the names. I'd like to avoid re-downloading all those .tcz files for my private mirror, since I can do the renaming myself.
Title: Re: -devs vs -dev
Post by: bmarkus on November 25, 2009, 11:13:27 PM
I wanted to add a p ragraph to the Creating Extensions section in the WIKI I'm updating, proposing the split up extensions and came across with the naming convention too.

Lets make a 'standard'. Personally all of my extensions are using -dev -doc -locale as I like shorter names and don't like -devs, but any common agreement is fine.
Title: Re: -devs vs -dev
Post by: jpeters on November 25, 2009, 11:36:00 PM
Or we could just submit both:  :D

ntfs-3g-dev, ntfs-3g-devs
Title: Re: -devs vs -dev
Post by: bmarkus on November 25, 2009, 11:43:31 PM
Or we could just submit both:  :D

ntfs-3g-dev, ntfs-3g-devs

Too much coffee ?  :D
Title: Re: -devs vs -dev
Post by: Jason W on November 26, 2009, 04:20:01 AM
Ok,  as no one seems to have an issue with using -dev, -locale, -doc, -lib, etc, we will go ahead with it.

Extensions named -devs, -decs, -locales, -libs, etc will be turned away.  I will rename the existing as it would be good to get this process out of the way since is going to throw a monkey wrench in extension audit functions.  Hopefully I will finish it this week.
Title: Re: -devs vs -dev
Post by: bmarkus on November 26, 2009, 04:33:43 AM
Also .dep files must be adjusted.
Title: Re: -devs vs -dev
Post by: Jason W on November 26, 2009, 04:51:47 AM
Dep files will certainly be adjusted.  Now that we have determined that 4096 block size is good to go, I can remove the old backup of 128k bs extensions and make a copy of the current one online to work with.  With a few commands I can make the change that will rename the extensions and fix the info and dep files.  I could do it on my own mirror but it would take a couple of days to upload it all. 
Title: Re: -devs vs -dev
Post by: Jason W on November 26, 2009, 05:04:55 AM
Rather, I will refresh my own mirror and make the changes there, and upload the changed files.  Safer and less stress that way.
Title: Re: -devs vs -dev
Post by: Jason W on November 26, 2009, 07:31:12 AM
ALso, use a dash instead of an underscore.  Like -dev rather than _dev.  Underscores will also be rejected.  A standard will make life so much easier in maintaining the repo.
Title: Re: -devs vs -dev
Post by: Jason W on November 26, 2009, 07:53:47 AM
It is done on my mirror.  ORBit and  GConf, libbonobo, gnome-vfs all had their version numbers removed and brought into naming conformance.  I will double check things this afternoon and upload tonight.

I will then hand prune the old files as I don't want to risk accidental deletion of wanted files on the main server.  The presence of the old files will not constitute a broken repo, but I will get them out of the way as soon as possible.

Base-devs has changed to base-dev, but gcc_libs remains the same.
Title: Re: -devs vs -dev
Post by: Jason W on November 26, 2009, 01:08:46 PM
I will now start the uploading of the changed files.  Should be done in a few hours.

Though this will play havoc with appsaudit for existing tce collections for now, once this is out of the way and the standard is in place things should be a lot smoother with extension updates.

In fact, though library extensions are critical not to have version numbers in the names, our appsaudit tool and the upgrade process depends on extensions keeping the same name across upgrades.  So end use binaries are also much better off without version numbers in the name.  Library extensions are strictly prohibited from having version numbers in their names, but end use apps are strongly encouraged to follow suit.  If needed, names like icewm-current, or poppler-stable, or jwm-snapshot, or wget-svn can be used to indicate a difference between similar apps in the repo instead of version numbers.
Title: Re: -devs vs -dev
Post by: Jason W on November 26, 2009, 04:35:26 PM
The change appears to be complete, and everything seems ok with the scripted checks on the repo.

Before updating or adding extensions, perhaps it would be best to start with a fresh tce directory.  But I figure better to have updates and dependencies broken one big time than to make the changes gradually and break extensions and deps in existing tce directories many times.
Title: Re: -devs vs -dev
Post by: maro on November 26, 2009, 08:05:08 PM
Good work, and thanks for the clear communication of the change. This way I could simply perform a local rename of the "big" files and let rsync take care of the small ones (saved me at least 100 MBytes of downloads).

After re-syncing I've spotted a few more candidates for changing plural to singular:
Code: [Select]
$ grep -E '(dev|lib|doc|locale)s\.tcz(l|lm|m|ml|)$' info.lst
gcc_libs.tczl
glibc_add_libs.tcz
gnome-mime-data-2.18.0_devs.tcz
ncurses-extralibs.tczl

I also did a check of multiple "flavors" for a given extension:
Code: [Select]
$ sed 's/\.tcz.*//' info.lst | uniq -d
git
pysqlite2
It looks to me that we might have kept some out-dated versions in the repository.
Title: Re: -devs vs -dev
Post by: Jason W on November 26, 2009, 08:26:52 PM
You miss nothing.  Thanks for your audit. 

I renamed the gnome-mime-data extension. 

The git and pysqlite tczl extensions were leftovers from previous upgrades, now fixed.

The glibc, gcc are not going to change before next major TC version change, so ok to leave for now.

Ncurses-extralibs has been renamed to ncurses-lib and dep files adjusted.

Title: Re: -devs vs -dev
Post by: maro on November 26, 2009, 08:49:48 PM
One teeny-weeny adjustment might still be required: zenmap.tczl.dep contains 'pysqlite2.tczl', whilst we now have got only 'pysqlite2.tcz'
Title: Re: -devs vs -dev
Post by: Jason W on November 26, 2009, 09:01:51 PM
Fixed.

Thanks.
Title: Re: -devs vs -dev
Post by: Juanito on November 27, 2009, 01:18:26 AM
..and I'd only used "-devs" to keep in line with Jason  ;)
Title: Re: -devs vs -dev
Post by: Jason W on November 27, 2009, 05:33:13 AM
Yeah, I realize I was probably the main reason folks were using -devs instead of -dev as looking back in early TC and another distro most others used -dev.  :)