Packaging when upstream source filename doesn't change for revisions
tgl at redhat.com
Sun May 20 22:18:22 UTC 2007
Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net> writes:
> Le dimanche 20 mai 2007 =C3=A0 14:02 -0700, Eric Smith a =C3=A9crit :
>> 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?
> You leave the file as-is. Except when one needs to remove embargoed
> content (patented code, etc=E2=80=A6) you shall not do any reprocessing/ren=
> outside the spec file, that just kills the rpm audit trail and general
That sounds like a knee-jerk response that completely misses the
problem. If upstream issues different tarballs under the same name
at different times, you've got an audit and reproduceability issue
no matter what --- which version were you using in SRPM xyz?
I think I'd argue that renaming the tarballs locally is the least bad
answer, as that at least makes it easier to keep them straight
> It may be important to you as packager. In that case your job is to
> convince upstream to fix their habits.
Agreed, the best answer is to persuade upstream that he's out of step
with the packaging practices of the entire world.
regards, tom lane
More information about the fedora-devel-list