unversioned upstream source
Michael Schwendt
fedora at wir-sind-cool.org
Sat Jul 8 10:04:49 UTC 2006
On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 23:28:33 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am seeking advice, or even better guidelines on the issue of unversionned
> upstream source.
>
> There is a dispute which may be seen here:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197488
>
> The upstream tarball is unversioned, I would like to add the timestamp to
> the tarball name to avoid having different tarballs with the same name, in
> case upstream wants to do a newer release without modifying the tarball name.
> This leads to:
>
> %define stamp 19981218
>
> Source0: uread-%{stamp}.tar.gz
> # unversioned upstream source, downloaded with wget -N
> # renamed to uread-YYYYMMDD.tar.gz
> #Source0: http://www.engineers.auckland.ac.nz/~snor007/src/uread.tar.gz
>
This is fine and acceptable. And I believe some of us have done it
like this before.
> Jochen objects to that, saying that the Source should be downloadable, like
> Source0: http://www.engineers.auckland.ac.nz/~snor007/src/uread.tar.gz
>
> What do you think about that issue? What do you think is best practice
> and why?
Renaming the tarball is better. It creates a file name which is more
unique than if you don't rename it. It also makes collisions in
%_sourcedir less likely. And, of course, you want a specific version of
the tarball in your src.rpm [but RPM does not offer any way to specify the
file checksum like it's possible with the FE lookaside cache].
More information about the devel
mailing list