no xfce for FC4?

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 09:38 +0100, Iago Rubio wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 00:19 -0600, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
> > On Mon, 2005-03-07 at 12:35 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > 
> > >I'm hoping to get some good feedback from the specs/packages and find
> > >someone interested in sponsoring me to maintain the xfce packages in
> > >fedora extras. 
> > 
> > I'm not an xfce user, but I took the time tonight to download your SRPMs
> > to review them. A few items of note:
> > 
> > All packages:
> > 
> > -Source0:
> > http://www.xfce.org/archive/xfce-4.0.3/src/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
> > +Source:
> > http://www.us.xfce.org/archive/xfce-4.2.0/src-bz2/libxfce4mcs-4.2.0.tar.bz2
> > 
> > Fixing the link is good, but I'd prefer you kept the Source0. 
> 
> I getting a bit confused with this.
> 
> I've just changed al urls in one package I maintain to fit with this:
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#head-899bd694d29ace1be956ab35177075021977560b
> 
> [quote]
> Please avoid using macros in the source URLs, prefer, for example, 
> 
>         http://dl.sf.net/someproject/1.0/someproject-1.0.tar.bz2 
> 
> over 
> 
>         http://dl.sf.net/%{name}/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.bz2 
> 
> While using macros saves you as a package maintainer some time whenever
> you update the package, QA will have to reconstruct the source URL
> manually when the validity of the sources is checked. 
> [/quote]
> 
> Please, Could anyone give us an athoritative answer on this ?
To rpm, this doesn't matter.

> What should be used in urls, macros or hardcoded urls ?
IMHO, using hard-coded versions in "Source:"-tags is less maintainable
than using %{version}.

I vote for the wiki to be changed.

Ralf