I have just come across this thread, but have not read it yet.
I just want to mention, that there is simple web service (made by me) to perform redirects
I use theese urls in my spec files.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Simo Sorce" <ssorce(a)redhat.com>
To: "Tom Hughes" <tom(a)compton.nu>
Cc: "Discussion of RPM packaging standards and practices for Fedora"
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014 3:53:21 PM
Subject: [Fedora-packaging] Source0 for github ?
On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 13:52:20 +0100
Tom Hughes <tom(a)compton.nu> wrote:
On 22/09/14 13:48, Tom Hughes wrote:
> On 22/09/14 12:58, Jeff Backus wrote:
>> interesting, I used a different commit id today and it works.
>> However if I use the instructions on the page to get the right
>> commit it doesn't.
>> Ie if I use git rev-parse $TAG I get a commit id which will
>> not work when substituted above. Intead if I do git log -1 $TAG
>> and use the commit id of the tagged commit it works.
>> I wonder if the instructions have always been wrong or if they
>> change something subtler in github and now only the tag ids do not
>> work anymore ...
>> Hi Simo,
>> Interesting. I can't speak to the use of get rev-parse vs. git log
>> since I always grabbed the commit hash from the webpage (I know, I
>> know, I'll hand in my l33t h4x0r card next meeting, I swear).
> The git rev-parse command is giving you the ID of the tag, not the
> ID of the commit that the tag points at.
Specifically this happens because it is an annotated tag, which is a
first class object with a creation date, author, comment and optional
With a simple tag the rev-parse thing would work.
Yes, that's the point, I guess whoever put up the original instructions
didn't know the difference and did not test with annotated tags.
perhaps we should amend the instructions there ?
The annotated tag issue may have been the only issue here, maybe github
never properly resolved annotated tags.
Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York
packaging mailing list