Request for a sponsor and a review of: pam_abl

[Oliver Falk]

On 07/13/2005 05:25 PM, Alexander Dalloz wrote:
> 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 asking him some things, besides the note about his outdated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).

This - of course - is a good idea!

Best,
  Oliver