directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot">
Subject Re: [ApacheDS] Installer file naming convention
Date Thu, 03 Apr 2008 07:44:33 GMT
Hi Alex,

On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 3:50 AM, Alex Karasulu <> wrote:

> It would be nice if we used a convention for the names of the generated
> installers.   Here's what we have right now from what I can build on this
> machine:
>    apacheds-debian-<arch>-<version>.deb
>    apacheds-server-<version>-<arch>.rpm
>    apacheds-linux-<version>.bin
> First I know this apacheds-server base name in the RPM is from the old
> installer days.  It's a bit redundant, so why don't we just use 'apacheds'
> as the package name base for everything.  No need to use apacheds-server.
> Same thing for apacheds-debian.  I think it's pretty clear this is for
> debian because of the file extension.  I don't think we need to add debian.
> Also we should probably have the architecture after the version.  So we
> would have something like this:
>     apacheds-1.5.2-ppc.rpm
>     apacheds-1.5.2-x86_64.rpm
>     apacheds-1.5.2-sparc.rpm
>     apacheds-1.5.2-x86_64.rpm
>     apacheds-1.5.2-ppc.deb
>     apacheds-1.5.2-i386.deb
>     apacheds-1.5.2-sparc.deb
>     apacheds-1.5.2-x86_64.deb
> I don't know the names of the installers generated for Windows and Mac,
> but if we follow the same convention:
>     apacheds-1.5.2.dmg (arch not needed as you said)
>     apacheds-1.5.2.exe (arch not needed again)

+1 for this naming scheme.
I can change it in the installers pom.xml if you like.

Again from my understanding the executables for Mac and W$ will run on any
> architecture for those operating systems.  I want to test this to make sure
> though if you have not already done that, let me know.

I'm sure for the mac version as we're using the universal binary of the
I don't know for Windows, I don't have a 64 bit Windows to test it on.

Now the bin installer is the odd ball.
> (1) Will this run on all architectures as well?
> (2) Will it produce an installation layout that can be used on multiple
> *NIX operating systems?

(1) I think I had set this up with a x86 version of the wrapper for the most
commonly used system.
We can add another binary installer for a 64 bit too if you like.

> If so then I guess we can just use the same scheme as we do for the Mac
> and W$ installers but instead of using the *.bin extension maybe we can use
> the *.sh .  This gives a clear cue to the user that it's a shell script
> installer here's what that would look like:
>     (presuming arch/os not needed if init script uses different bundled
> wrapper executable)

Well, to me it more a small shell script in a large binary file than a large
shell script including a small binary part, but as you like.
It like the binary installer for the JVM which you can download from Sun.
But if you want to switch the extension to sh, it ok.

> I guess eventually we'll also have Solaris packages and that presents the
> whole sparc verses intel architecture classification.  But this scheme will
> support that:
>     apacheds-1.5.2-sparc.pkg
>     apacheds-1.5.2-i386.pkg
>     apacheds-1.5.2-x86_64.pkg

+1 for this too, as soon as we have this installers. (Soon ;) )


View raw message