[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



Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas mailhot laposte net> writes:
> Le dimanche 20 mai 2007 =C3=A0 14:02 -0700, Eric Smith a =C3=A9crit :
>> 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?

> You leave the file as-is. Except when one needs to remove embargoed
> content (patented code, etc=E2=80=A6) you shall not do any reprocessing/ren=
> aming
> outside the spec file, that just kills the rpm audit trail and general
> reproduceability.

That sounds like a knee-jerk response that completely misses the
problem.  If upstream issues different tarballs under the same name
at different times, you've got an audit and reproduceability issue
no matter what --- which version were you using in SRPM xyz?

I think I'd argue that renaming the tarballs locally is the least bad
answer, as that at least makes it easier to keep them straight
internally.

> It may be important to you as packager. In that case your job is to
> convince upstream to fix their habits.

Agreed, the best answer is to persuade upstream that he's out of step
with the packaging practices of the entire world.

			regards, tom lane


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