[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Packaging when upstream source filename doesn't change for revisions

2007/5/20, Eric Smith <eric brouhaha com>:
I'm packaging asl (a GPL'd cross-assembler package for many microprocessors,
by Alfred Arnold):


I started from a spec file from OpenSUSE (also GPL'd), removed some
openSUSE specific stuff, fixed the builddepends, cleaned up the patches,
and updated to the latest upstream beta release.  It builds fine, and
I want to submit it for Fedora inclusion.  I've read the packaging
guidelines, naming guidelines, and Package Maintainer instructions,
but I have an issue that isn't covered.

The upstream maintainer does not change the source filename (or URL)
when he issues new beta releases.  They are always named
"asl-current.tar.gz".  Inside the tarball is a changelog that gives a
build number for the release; for instance, the latest ones are
prereleases of 1.42, and the changelog entry for the beta release
calls it Bld55.

Bssed on the naming guidelines, I think the SRPM should be
asl-1.42-0.x.bld55.src.rpm.  But my question is what to do about
the source file.  Do I leave it as asl-current.tar.gz, or do I
rename it locally as asl-current-1.42-bld55.tar.gz?

I haven't found any definitive guideline for this situation, and can
see arguments both ways.  If I leave the filename alone, it is not
possible to have multiple versions in the RPM build tree, but
perhaps that's not important.

Is there any official policy or guideline for this situation?


From what I can see, these two appears to be the same:


Maybe you could just use the first one as the source file for the RPM?

(Disclamer: I have not checked the MD5SUM or the content of the file,
just the file size and date.)

Trond Danielsen

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]