[Bug 225751] Merge Review: file-roller

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Merge Review: file-roller


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225751





------- Additional Comments From toshio at tiki-lounge.com  2007-02-10 19:05 EST -------
As explained in #13, there are de facto rules for pulling from revision control
which need to be written down and voted on.  And Jeremy Katz is working on the
inhouse Red Hat "source rpm is canonical" policy.  We need to write those two
policies in such a way that Mozilla and similar are covered.

The way things have worked until now, the sources have been assumed to be
available somehow (otherwise it's not open source.)  If it's a tarball, provide
a URL.  If it's a snapshot from revision control, either a comment on how to
pull that revision or a script to pull it and construct the tarball is necessary.

I'm not sure what Jeremy's plans are WRT srpm's being the canonical source but
if the only public source is the rpm itself then the rules will have to reflect
that.

The overarching reason is that sources need to be checked against upstream.  One
of RPM's design goals is to cleanly separate the upstream code (in the form of a
tarball) from the vendor changes (in the form of patches).  Including the
information necessary to check this in the spec file helps reviewers to check
that the tarball is actually based on upstream.  In cases where we're upstream
we should theoretically be able to apply other, better tests to show this: like
tapping the developer on the shoulder and asking if he really released 0.2
yesterday with the following md5sum.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.