[Fedora-packaging] Re: Source Url Guidelines

Axel Thimm Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Wed Feb 14 23:33:42 UTC 2007

On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 02:40:06PM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-02-14 at 22:57 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 01:45:25PM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > > Hey all,
> > > 
> > > Here's my first draft of a SourceURL guideline.  This tries to
> > > encapsulate current practices but a few new things had to be added
> > > related to SRPMs where no upstream source exists.  This draft will
> > > probably need some touching up as I whipped it up pretty quickly but
> > > hopefully it captures the spirit of what we're trying to achieve.
> > 
> > Looks OK. But since we're commenting on source origin could somewhere
> > a kind request ("SHOULD") to (srpm-)package upstream sources/patches
> > with original timestamps where possible be embedded?
> That sounds like a good best practice.  It sounds like a separate item
> the way things are currently phrased.  Do you have some wording to fit
> it in, or do you just want to throw it in a separate recommendation.

since it's a weak suggestion and only a subsentence it would be nice
to interweave in the part that discusses unmodified upstream
sources. I agree the topic "URL" is not exactly describing timestamps :)

Maybe the general topic could be abstracted to "Dealing with sources
and patches" or similar, so it wouldn't be completely out of the water.

As a phrasing I would suggest "Whenever possible try to maintain
timestamps of sources or patches".
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/attachments/20070215/d0585c6d/attachment.sig>

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list