LIFLG Mod Installer Version Numbers

Talk about everything.
Post Reply
AllenJB

LIFLG Mod Installer Version Numbers

Post by AllenJB » Fri Feb 10, 2006 17:33

Hi all,

I've just been creating a package for one of the LIFLG wrapped UT2004 mods for Gentoo, and it's struct me that there appears to be no standardised naming system for mod installers, particualr with regards to betas.

The UTXMP beta is called utxmp_beta2.0-english.run while the u4e beta is called u4e_5.0beta4-english.run. As you can see one has the 'beta' before the main version number and one has it after. It would make it much easier for packagers if there was a relatively strict version numbering system in place. For an example of the sort of thing I'm talking about see http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/ha ... #doc_chap2

I now it's just a small thing, but making such a change would allow Gentoo to more easily re-use the same code in its packaging system, allowing us to churn out packages for LIFLG wrapped mods faster and with less problems.

Allen

kratz00
liflg member
Posts: 1654
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 16:23

Post by kratz00 » Fri Feb 10, 2006 20:18

hi

thanks for your suggestions but i think our naming system is consistent.

for u4e it's beta 4 of version 5.0
for utxmp it's beta 2 auf version 0.0 (there is no release so it could be also beta 2 auf version 1.0 if you like)

and i think it's the same as what i read following your link

AllenJB

Post by AllenJB » Fri Feb 10, 2006 22:16

Then perhaps utxmp_beta2-english.run or utxmp_1.0beta2-english.run would be better names for it. The way the file is named now make it look to me like it's utxmp 2.0 beta. If your naming is consistant, then why does u4e use beta4 while utxmp uses beta2.0 ? The suggested filename change would remove ambiguities as well as make packaging easier.

Allen

kratz00
liflg member
Posts: 1654
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 16:23

Post by kratz00 » Sat Feb 11, 2006 0:00

yes you are right in this case we were not consistent
and i can't remember why i added the '.0'

sorry

but the rest of our installers should follow the rules

Mayhem

Post by Mayhem » Sat Feb 11, 2006 5:51

What are you hoping to gain by repackaging loki installers? Wouldn't it be better to make Gentoo packages out of what is released upstream by the original creators of the mods?

As far as I can tell, the LIFLG installers are numbered to reflect upstream. utxmp called their last release UTXMP Public Beta 2, thus utxmp_beta2.0-english.run. The trailing .0 probably shouldn't be there, but putting a number before the Beta would be wrong.

The apparent inconsistency seems to be because mod creators each have their own ideas about numbering. Some things, like the recent UT2004 Megapack, don't even have a version number.

AllenJB

Post by AllenJB » Sat Feb 11, 2006 12:18

Mayhem wrote:What are you hoping to gain by repackaging loki installers? Wouldn't it be better to make Gentoo packages out of what is released upstream by the original creators of the mods?


With a "template" (called an eclass) that pretty much automates installation of a UT2004 mod that uses a loki installer. Repackaging an upstream version would take atleast half an hour of testing - and that's assuming they don't do anything weird in terms of packaging / installation. Writing a package (ebuild) for a loki installer wrapped mod takes about 5 minutes flat.

As far as I can tell, the LIFLG installers are numbered to reflect upstream. utxmp called their last release UTXMP Public Beta 2, thus utxmp_beta2.0-english.run. The trailing .0 probably shouldn't be there, but putting a number before the Beta would be wrong.


I understand the relation to upstreams numbering after checking against them. the "version 2.0 beta" was an assumption I'd made based on the filename. It was actually also an assumption made by the person who originally submitted an ebuild for the mod (I was helping them because they couldn't get it to work).

It took me an extra 15 minutes to write a peice of code to convert the assumed "2.0 beta" format from our version system to your (inaccurately assumed) version. (This is done so that, assuming the version numbering format of the mod doesn't change, the ebuild can be carried through from beta to "full release" without any changes, minimising later work). Had the number been displayed without the the ".0" it would have taken less than a minute.

The apparent inconsistency seems to be because mod creators each have their own ideas about numbering. Some things, like the recent UT2004 Megapack, don't even have a version number.


We realise different people have different version numbering systems. In this case I just think that the formatting of the version on the liflg package was ambiguous. In this case, the original liflg packager (kratz00) agrees, so I'm not the only one.

<rant> The megapack? Oh god, don't get me started on that. That damn megapack was like the most evil thing Epic could have done to packagers. "Lets bundle a patch, an earlier bonus pack and a new bonus pak all in one" - then 3dgamers dropped ECE from their mirrors meaning suddenly our ECE package didn't work. We then had to recreate the ECE bonus pack package using the megapack AND a megapack "new content only" package while avoideing file collisions in all packages - including with the original ECE package and the 3369.2 patch! </rant>

Allen

Post Reply