GitHub is a terrible upstream

Toshio Kuratomi a.badger at gmail.com
Wed Jun 13 18:50:58 UTC 2012


On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 08:10:14PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-06-13 at 11:45 -0600, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
> > On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:08:05 -0600
> > Orion Poplawski <orion at cora.nwra.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > %global commit bd245c9
> > > 
> > > Source0: 
> > >
> > https://github.com/jukka/pcfi/tarball/%{commit}/jukka-pcfi-%{commit}.tar.gz
> > > 
> > > %setup -q -n jukka-pcfi-%{commit}
> > 
> > I do not understand how this is supposed to work in the face of
> > "yum update". 
> 
> But if you read his email carefully, Orion isn't speaking about the
> version.
> So commit will be bd245c9 but the version might very well be
> 
> Version: 20120613git%{commit}
> 
> and as long as the date gets updated, yum will be happy with it.
> 
Also, probably want to keep all of this out of the version field.  The
Guidelines say to stick it in release.

Putting it in Version: runs the risk of upstream making a release like 1.0
which would then sort lower than the date (20120613).

-Toshio
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20120613/c48d1071/attachment.sig>


More information about the devel mailing list