www-repository mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Tim Anderson" <...@netspace.net.au>
Subject RE: Test/Prototypical Repository
Date Thu, 27 Nov 2003 21:53:08 GMT
> From: Ben Walding [mailto:ben@walding.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, 25 November 2003 9:03 AM
>
> I'm still not convinced that "binaries" is better than "binary" as a
> type directory.
>
> See my original comments that must have lost in the ether (section 2) -
> http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?listName=repository@apa
> che.org&msgId=1124258
>
[snip]

"binaries" matches existing ASF practices, for both java and C
distributions.
Also, the directory name need not be reflected in the artifact extension -
the directory is there simply to group similar artifacts.

The proposals no longer refer to a 'type' directory.

E.g, for java artifacts [1], artifact-specifier is:
  artifact-specifier = java-artifact-specifier
  java-artifact-specifier = jar-artifact | war-artifact| rar-artifact
                            | ear-artifact | tld-artifact | javadoc-artifact
  jar-artifact = "jars" "/" versioned-artifact-name ".jar"
  war-artifact = "wars" "/" versioned-artifact-name ".war"
  rar-artifact = "rars" "/" versioned-artifact-name ".rar"
  ear-artifact = "ears" "/" versioned-artifact-name ".ear"
  tld-specifier = "tlds" "/" versioned-artifact-name ".tld"
  javadoc-artifact = "docs" "/" versioned-artifact-name
                     "-javadoc" "." arc-ext
  arc-ext = "tar.gz" | "zip" | "bzip2" | ...


-Tim

[1] http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?ASFRepository/JavaArtifacts



Mime
View raw message