[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: unversioned upstream source



On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 23:28:33 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> I am seeking advice, or even better guidelines on the issue of unversionned 
> upstream source.
> 
> There is a dispute which may be seen here:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197488
> 
> The upstream tarball is unversioned, I would like to add the timestamp to
> the tarball name to avoid having different tarballs with the same name, in 
> case upstream wants to do a newer release without modifying the tarball name.
> This leads to:
> 
> %define stamp 19981218
> 
> Source0:        uread-%{stamp}.tar.gz
> # unversioned upstream source, downloaded with wget -N
> # renamed to uread-YYYYMMDD.tar.gz
> #Source0:        http://www.engineers.auckland.ac.nz/~snor007/src/uread.tar.gz
> 

This is fine and acceptable. And I believe some of us have done it
like this before.
 
> Jochen objects to that, saying that the Source should be downloadable, like
> Source0:        http://www.engineers.auckland.ac.nz/~snor007/src/uread.tar.gz
> 
> What do you think about that issue? What do you think is best practice
> and why?

Renaming the tarball is better. It creates a file name which is more
unique than if you don't rename it. It also makes collisions in
%_sourcedir less likely. And, of course, you want a specific version of
the tarball in your src.rpm [but RPM does not offer any way to specify the
file checksum like it's possible with the FE lookaside cache].


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]