perfsonar development work

[Guilherme Fernandes <>]

Roman Lapacz wrote:
> 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
Hi,
> > 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.
I agree. The packages with this version type shouldn't be made public, 
they would only be useful for facilitating the testing in the release 
process. I only made that package to illustrate how upgrading of rpm 
will work.

I would also prefer that testers/developers just do a "rpm -e 
<package-name>" and "rpm -i <new-package>", keeping the official 
versions of the packages.

Guilherme
> Roman