perfsonar development work

[Roman Lapacz <>]

Guilherme Fernandes wrote:
> Sorry, I should have noted that I manually renamed the rpm file to 
> have the RC3 tag, but the actual name of the package is 
> 'perfsonar-clmp' and the version is '2.0'.
>
> Besides, the new package_maker script makes the package name lower 
> case but maintains the name inside the webapps directory as is. So the 
> new package for clmp will be 'perfsonar-clmp' and not 'perfSONAR-CLMP' 
> (but for running the script I still give the name perfSONAR-CLMP, 
> which is the name of the service inside the webapps directory), which 
> is a different package for the rpm system (so upgrade doesn't works).

HI Guilherme

> Also note that packages must have only numbers and dots in their 
> version (as given to the package_maker script). So if the 
> developers/testers want to make the RC's packages upgradeable they 
> should adopt something like  <service version>.<rc_number> (i.e. 2.0.3 
> for CL-MP 2.0 RC3).
>
> As an example to test the upgrade command of RPM you can use:
>
> http://150.162.248.42:8081/perfsonar-clmp-2.0.3-1.i386.rpm

I'm just thinking that when 'RC' or 'rc' is not present in a file name 
that might be misleading and sometimes people who are not involved in 
the release process might think such file name represents normal release 
package.


Roman