[Fedora-packaging] Re: How to handle unversioned upstream tarballs?

[Axel Thimm]

On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 06:57:03PM -0700, Philip Prindeville wrote:
> Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>>>>>>> "PP" == Philip Prindeville <philipp_subx at redfish-solutions.com> writes:
>>>>>>>             
>>
>> PP> Well, I've (a) tried to get the owners to rename the tarball with
>> PP> an embedded version number, so far without success, and (b) went
>> PP> looking through the maintainers wiki on how to handle cases where
>> PP> the tarball isn't versioned (and it must be done manually) but
>> PP> didn't find it.
>>
>> You just deal with it the hard way.  CVS (or the sources mechanism, at
>> least) has no problems dealing with unversioned upstream source.  The
>> burden on the packager is higher but it's not really all that
>> difficult to deal with.  It does make upstream source comparisons
>> mostly useless, though, so we lose an important means of verification
>> but this isn't something the maintainer can solve.
>>
>> If you asked upstream and they don't care then you've done what you
>> can do.
>>
>>  - J<
>>   
>
> Yeah, about that... they don't seem to be using CVS upstream...  If  
> they're using SVN, then they don't publish a public interface.

If you are after a date to use as a version number, then use the mtime
of the tarball. Get it with wget -N to preserve timestamps (curl has
similar options). If the download is broken timestamp-wise (like it is
for asterisk/zaptel etc. for example), then use the date of the newest
file in the tarball.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/attachments/20080829/34fce1fb/attachment.sig>