discussion on build artifact naming

etclabscore / jade

[WIP] Jade - The next generation of web applications

Apache License 2.0

1 stars 1 forks source link

discussion on build artifact naming #5

Closed meowsbits closed 5 years ago

meowsbits commented 5 years ago

https://github.com/etclabscore/jade/blob/master/BUILDING.md#build-folder-structure

[x] Are these build rules for CI, for Makefiles/runners that'll be used locally?...
[x] Build dir naming...
ethereumclassic/go-ethereum currently uses build/bin/geth
- the /bin/ is nice because it differentiates executable artifacts vs. non executables, eg signatures, logs, whatever
ethereum/go-ethereum uses build/geth
i hacked on a project this weekend that used .build/
[x] Should we standardize platform naming, eg darwin vs. osx vs. mac?
[ ] Should we standardize platform architecture, so have like amd64 or whatever somewhere?
[x] Should we prefer .zip or .tar.gz or both? (Currently geth uses .zip for Windows, then both for linux and mac)
[ ] Common artifact name schemes

meowsbits commented 5 years ago

both CI and local builds
use mac
use build/
build scope doesn't reach artifact compression (that's release level)
build scope doesn't touch artifact name scheme (that's for dist/release)

BelfordZ commented 5 years ago

Should we standardize platform architecture, so have like amd64 or whatever somewhere?

I think we should, yes

BelfordZ commented 5 years ago

Build dir naming...
ethereumclassic/go-ethereum currently uses build/bin/geth
- the /bin/ is nice because it differentiates executable artifacts vs. non executables, eg signatures, logs, whatever

I think the purpose here is to do exactly the opposite, and to simply flatten it all, making it structurally more simple.

If there isnt enough of a description of what the executable is in the name, then chances are the name is probably just not a good one.

meowsbits commented 5 years ago

yea i'm good w/ that.

so in light of

build scope doesn't reach artifact compression (that's release level)

build scope doesn't touch artifact name scheme (that's for dist/release)

are we good here?

(i started messing around with what commands we can use to portably standardize - at least exemplify - artifact naming, but realized it might be "out of scope")

BelfordZ commented 5 years ago

yep sounds good to me.