Característica #373
tancat
Coherent naming for precompiled images' filenames
Afegit per Roger Pueyo Centelles fa casi 9 anys.
Actualitzat fa més de 8 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