[Bug 225751] Merge Review: file-roller

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Merge Review: file-roller


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225751





------- Additional Comments From toshio at tiki-lounge.com  2007-02-08 21:07 EST -------
I see two issues being expressed here:

1) Convenience.  file-roller will need a one-character change in the spec
approximately four times per year.
2) Factuality.  When we are heavily involved with upstream (ex: Mozilla), there
will be times when we have access to tarballs that aren't yet available in
publicly available trees.

These are the reasons not to include the full URL in the source line.  The
reasons for having the full source URL are to help reviewers, qa people, and
automated scripts find and verify the source.

I asked about this on fedora-packaging and got a limited response where #1 was
seen as not having significant benefits for a change.  #2 was seen as something
that we need to make an exception for but needed more information.  So if you're
okay with it, I'd like to drop trying to change #1 and concentrate on #2.

For #2, we'd like to know if the source tarball eventually lands at a specific
URL or if it's often not publically available at all.  Is it a snapshot or
something more formal?  If the tarball eventually lands someplace, just that it
wouldn't necessarily be present at the time we build, then we probably want to
include the full URL where the tarball will eventually land with a note that the
source may not be present there at this exact moment.  If the source will never
land one person suggested using a patch against the last released tarball. 
Another suggestion was to allow the mozilla source to go through with a spec
file comment explaining why there is no upstream URL.  A third suggestion was to
treat it like a Red Hat created application which is only distributed in the
srpm.  We don't have a policy for that yet so what the proceedure will be for
that is unknown.  If that's the route you think we need to go, I'll start
drafting something with Jeremy and let you know what it looks like.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.