Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894338
--- Comment #10 from Michael Schwendt <mschwendt(a)gmail.com> ---
Or maybe you're contradicting yourself or not being clear enough.
Not at all. Eric will be able to explain it to you, because it is his review
you misunderstood to begin with.
"...it doesn't happen for the "silently" updated
Spec file anymore
I've downloaded _two_ src.rpms from this ticket, and the second one still was
suffering from the same problem. If you continue to publish updates silently in
an attempt to fix issues reported to you, you need to accept that reviewers
still refer to older files:
$ md5sum libdistorm-3.3-1.fc18.src.rpm
beac57444a21349c4a65c76f0e81cebc libdistorm-3.3-1.fc18.src.rpm
Build Date: Mon 14 Jan 2013 05:26:20 PM CET
That's why it's common practice to update the Release tag *and* to maintain a
%changelog section in the spec file.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:FrequentlyMadeMistakes
Why is it better than:
rm -fr %{_builddir}/distorm3
unzip %{SOURCE0}
%setup -q -n distorm3/make/linux -D -T
Nobody claimed anything would be "better". I only pointed out that your %prep
section didn't work well and suggested a cleaner working one. Your latest one
still isn't pretty, and the top builddir is still not related to
%name-%version, but if it works and if you like it so much, nobody would
object. ;-)
What's the status of the package here now?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=OHB37c0aQU&a=cc_unsubscribe