From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15780 invoked by alias); 4 Jan 2011 08:33:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 15772 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Jan 2011 08:33:58 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtaout01-winn.ispmail.ntl.com (HELO mtaout01-winn.ispmail.ntl.com) (81.103.221.47) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 04 Jan 2011 08:33:52 +0000 Received: from aamtaout01-winn.ispmail.ntl.com ([81.103.221.35]) by mtaout01-winn.ispmail.ntl.com (InterMail vM.7.08.04.00 201-2186-134-20080326) with ESMTP id <20110104083348.UWBO26766.mtaout01-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@aamtaout01-winn.ispmail.ntl.com>; Tue, 4 Jan 2011 08:33:48 +0000 Received: from cog.dallaway.org.uk ([213.106.80.48]) by aamtaout01-winn.ispmail.ntl.com (InterMail vG.3.00.04.00 201-2196-133-20080908) with ESMTP id <20110104083348.VKZE20122.aamtaout01-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@cog.dallaway.org.uk>; Tue, 4 Jan 2011 08:33:48 +0000 Received: from cog.dallaway.org.uk (cog.dallaway.org.uk [127.0.0.1]) by cog.dallaway.org.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p048XkMw009680; Tue, 4 Jan 2011 08:33:46 GMT Message-ID: <4D22DB6A.7000605@dallaway.org.uk> Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2011 08:33:00 -0000 From: John Dallaway User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20101213) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michael Bergandi CC: eCos Developer List Subject: Re: Package versioning requirements for an epk References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact ecos-devel-help@ecos.sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: ecos-devel-owner@ecos.sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2011-01/txt/msg00001.txt.bz2 Hi Michael Michael Bergandi wrote: > Can someone explain/confirm the versioning requirements for an epk > package distribution? > > From what I can tell, you used to be able to get away with > $PACKAGE/current, but it looks like ecosadmin.tcl might have been > updated to force proper verisioning. The package I am testing does use > 'current' as the version directory in the epk, but the ecosadmin.tcl > tool is barking about the package not having a version directory. Using "current" as a version directory within a .epk file should work, but the tool is intended for easy distribution of package _releases_ so version directory names in the "v1_0" style make more sense in the majority of cases. For avoidance of doubt, the directory path fragments in ecos.db should always point to the parent directory of the package version directory. John Dallaway eCos maintainer