Standardize release asset naming

[X9VoiD]

Original (from CI):

Renamed (as seen on release):

Historically, we're doing this rename for OpenTabletDriver.Web. We don't have to anymore and we can start using the original filenames once opentabletdriver.github.io#139 is resolved.

But we can do better.

I'm proposing we use the following rules/convention for naming release assets:

• Use the platform/distro's convention when it exists,
• Else, use opentabletdriver.<platform>.<version>-<arch>.<ext>, where:
  • platform is win, macos, or linux, this is optional for linux packages.
  • arch is x86_64, or arm64.

[gonX]

I agree with this, however I would have to see some examples of "use the platform/distro's convention when it exists" - would all of them not fit into the "extension" part of your suggested formatting?

[gonX]

I got a bit ahead of myself there. The name used for Fedora is a good example of what I was asking about: opentabletdriver-0.6.4.0-1.x86_64.rpm

To take inspiration from this, maybe use opentabletdriver.<platform>.<version>.<arch>.<ext>? It replaces -<arch> with .<arch>. The only downside I see with this is that it might be confusing for people hiding file extensions (making the Windows .exe look like a .x86_64 file)

I prefer not to include pkgrel (the -1 in 0.6.4.0-1), as any packaging updates for these packages would likely have to be fixed by a new minor release anyway, or for the rare occasion that it doesn't need a new release, the old file should be replaced with a fixed version - but if nothing else, I am not completely locked on this idea.

[X9VoiD]

I agree with dropping the pkgrel. How about opentabletdriver.<platform>-<version>.<arch>.<ext>? If we have no clear preference then let's use this one.

related issue comment: OpenTabletDriver/opentabletdriver.github.io#139 (comment)