[Fedora-packaging] Source0 for github ?

[Simo Sorce]

On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 13:12:00 -0400 (EDT)
Jakub QB Dorňák <jdornak at redhat.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
> 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 to github. See http://srcurl.net/
> I use theese urls in my spec files.
> 
> Regards,
> QB
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Simo Sorce" <ssorce at redhat.com>
> To: "Tom Hughes" <tom at compton.nu>
> Cc: "Discussion of RPM packaging standards and practices for Fedora"
> <packaging at lists.fedoraproject.org> 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 at 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 gpg signature.
> > 
> > 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.

If it is ok to use it in Fedora spec files, I would gladly do so, I
hate the tarball name with the commitid into it.

Simo.

-- 
Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York