Característica #373
tancat
Coherent naming for precompiled images' filenames
Afegit per Roger Pueyo Centelles fa casi 11 anys.
Actualitzat fa casi 11 anys.
Descripció
Precompiled images are cool, but their naming is quite chaotic. You know:
- TplinkWDR4300-qMp_trunk-factory-20150708_1720.bin
- TP-Link-TL-WR841N-v9-qMp_trunk-sysupgrade-20150708_1659.bin
- RocketM5-XW-qMp_trunk-sysupgrade-20150708_1533.bin
- Ubiquiti-UniFi-AP-qMp_trunk-sysupgrade-20150708_1818.bin
It would be nice they would use the following naming scheme:
qMp_%QMP_VERSION_%MANUFACTURER_%MODEL_%DATE.bin
For instance:
- qMp-4.5_TP-Link_TL-WDR4300-v1-sysupgrade-20150708_1720.bin
- qMp-4.5_TP-Link_TL-WR841N-v9-sysupgrade-20150708_1721.bin
- qMp-4.5_Ubiquiti_Rocket-M5-XW-sysupgrade-20150708_1722.bin
and so on.
- Estat ha canviat de Nou a En progrés
- Assignat a s'ha establert a Roger Pueyo Centelles
- % realitzat ha canviat de 0 a 50
I agree the naming change but I have some comments.
You propose the scheme "qMp_%QMP_VERSION_%MANUFACTURER_%MODEL_%DATE.bin" but your examples are like "qMp-4.5_TP-Link_TL-WDR4300-v1-sysupgrade-20150708_1720.bin". The question is about using - and _, for example between model and date; I think it's important to take into account because of how the update system checks data, etc.
If you consider I suggest your scheme but more strict with the "_"; something like:
qMp_3.2-Clearance_TP-Link_TL-WDR4300-v1_sysupgrade-20150708-1720.bin
qMp-Guifi_3.1.1-Clearance_Ubiquiti_Nanostation-M5_factory-20150602-1820.bin
- Estat ha canviat de En progrés a Comentaris
- Assignat a ha canviat de Roger Pueyo Centelles a Jorge L. Florit
So,
qMp_3.2-Clearance_TP-Link_TL-WDR4300-v1_sysupgrade-20150708_1720.bin
qMp-Guifi_3.2-Clearance_TP-Link_TL-WDR4300-v1_factory-20150708_1720.bin
This is:
$(COMMUNITY)_$(VERSION_NUMBER)-$(VERSION_NICK)_$(NAME)_sysupgrade-$(TIMESTAMP).bin
$(COMMUNITY)_$(VERSION_NUMBER)-$(VERSION_NICK)_$(NAME)_factory-$(TIMESTAMP).bin
where $NAME = {Ubiquiti_RouterStation, Generic_x86, Ubiquiti_Unifi-AP, TP-Link_TL-WR841N-v8, ...}
Is this ok?
Yes it looks good to me. Only if the timestamp has a "_" between date and time, I will put another _ before (just after sysupgrad/factory):
$(COMMUNITY)_$(VERSION_NUMBER)-$(VERSION_NICK)_$(NAME)_sysupgrade_$(TIMESTAMP).bin
Alternatively, to shorten the file name, $VERSION_NICK could be omitted.
$(COMMUNITY)_$(VERSION_NUMBER)_$(NAME)_sysupgrade_$(TIMESTAMP).bin
Do it like you consider most appropriate.
Yes, it's how it is created, but we can change the timestamp to $(shell date +%Y%m%d-%H%M) instead of $(shell date +%Y%m%d_%H%M) if it looks better.
20150710-2344 or 20150710_2344. Even 2015-07-10_23:44...
Then,
$(COMMUNITY)_$(VERSION_NUMBER)-$(VERSION_NICK)_$(NAME)_factupgrade_$(TIMESTAMP).bin
with timestamp 2015-07-10_23:44?
- Assignat a ha canviat de Jorge L. Florit a Roger Pueyo Centelles
I think it will be easier to handle the file name with $(shell date +%Y%m%d-%H%M) and the vars separated with :
$(COMMUNITY)$(VERSION_NUMBER)_$(NAME)_sysupgrade_$(TIMESTAMP).bin
Go ahead!
Sorry, the editor misunderstood the "_": $(COMMUNITY)_$(VERSION_NUMBER)_$(NAME)_sysupgrade_$(TIMESTAMP).bin
Brilliant!
Let's just set the timestamp to $(shell date +%Y%m%d-%H%M) then?
- Estat ha canviat de Comentaris a Resolt
- % realitzat ha canviat de 50 a 100
- Estat ha canviat de Resolt a Tancat
També disponible a: Atom
PDF