Packaging when upstream source filename doesn't change for revisions

Trond Danielsen trond.danielsen at
Sun May 20 21:37:39 UTC 2007

2007/5/20, Eric Smith <eric at>:
> I'm packaging asl (a GPL'd cross-assembler package for many microprocessors,
> by Alfred Arnold):
> I started from a spec file from OpenSUSE (also GPL'd), removed some
> openSUSE specific stuff, fixed the builddepends, cleaned up the patches,
> and updated to the latest upstream beta release.  It builds fine, and
> I want to submit it for Fedora inclusion.  I've read the packaging
> guidelines, naming guidelines, and Package Maintainer instructions,
> but I have an issue that isn't covered.
> The upstream maintainer does not change the source filename (or URL)
> when he issues new beta releases.  They are always named
> "asl-current.tar.gz".  Inside the tarball is a changelog that gives a
> build number for the release; for instance, the latest ones are
> prereleases of 1.42, and the changelog entry for the beta release
> calls it Bld55.
> Bssed on the naming guidelines, I think the SRPM should be
> asl-1.42-0.x.bld55.src.rpm.  But my question is what to do about
> the source file.  Do I leave it as asl-current.tar.gz, or do I
> rename it locally as asl-current-1.42-bld55.tar.gz?
> I haven't found any definitive guideline for this situation, and can
> see arguments both ways.  If I leave the filename alone, it is not
> possible to have multiple versions in the RPM build tree, but
> perhaps that's not important.
> Is there any official policy or guideline for this situation?
> Thanks!
> Eric

>From what I can see, these two appears to be the same:

Maybe you could just use the first one as the source file for the RPM?

(Disclamer: I have not checked the MD5SUM or the content of the file,
just the file size and date.)

Trond Danielsen

More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list