Request for a sponsor and a review of: pam_abl

[Alexander Dalloz]

Am Mi, den 13.07.2005 schrieb Paul Howarth um 16:32:

> Yes, that would happen. You could do this though:
> 
> %{name} -> pam_abl
> %{version} -> 0.2.2
> %{reldate} -> 20050110
> %{release} -> %{reldate}%{?dist}
> 
> Source0: http://host/path/to/pam_abl-%{reldate}-%{version}.tar.gz
> 
> > Another issue with the %{release} is the way how to increase it for
> > reflecting rpm changes. What would be the proper choice for %{release}?
> > 
> > %{release} -> 20050110-1%{?dist}
> 
> Better to use "." than "-" there I think.

Thanks Paul - and Oliver of course too - for your valuable replies.

> > In this way? Or better to omit the date value and using a self chosen
> > release number? What's the recommended way?
> 
> I'd do that as long as upstream isn't in the habit of releasing tarballs 
> with a new date but the same version number.

I think I will anyway contact the upstream author of pam_abl, informing
him about the intention to include his PAM module into Fedora Extras and
asking him some things, besides the note about his outdated
documentation in his tarball (I refer to the other part of this thread).

> Paul.

Alexander


-- 
 
1024D/866ED681 2005-07-11 Alexander Dalloz (Fedora Project) <alex at dalloz.de>
Key fingerprint = CD40 0A91 7814 C1E4 5940  8E0E 1FD5 C316 866E D681

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/attachments/20050713/03a4b9bb/attachment.sig>