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:


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:


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)

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.

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?

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)

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:


So that gives us some relative consistency.  WDYT?