Re: spec file frustration (rant)

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



On Tue, 2016-12-13 at 15:39 -0800, Alice Wonder wrote:
> On 12/13/2016 03:34 PM, Phil Wyett wrote:
> > On Tue, 2016-12-13 at 14:16 -0800, Alice Wonder wrote:
> >> I'm getting spec files from centos git which is really convenient when
> >> the related source is easy to find. But some things - e.g. from a spec file
> >>
> >> # How to create the source tarball:
> >> #
> >> # git clone git://git.fedorahosted.org/git/python-rhsm.git/
> >> # cd client/python-rhsm
> >> # tito build --tag python-rhsm-$VERSION-$RELEASE --tgz
> >>
> >> Never used tito before, so I install it and try, and rather than giving
> >> me the source package I need - it gives me a python traceback
> >> complaining that I haven't configured some things properly.
> >>
> >> Seems a lot of the software distribution world is getting overly complex
> >> with an expectation that the end user who needs to exercise his FLOSS
> >> rights has to use git or nodejs or for php composer or whatever just to
> >> get what use to be available with no more complexity than choosing
> >> tar.gz or tar.bz2 or .zip if the dev was Windows.
> >>
> >> Whatever happened to KISS and why can't source tarballs be distributed
> >> as source tarballs?
> >>
> >> Back when I was a Fedora packager - the packaging guidelines would
> >> reject a package of the Source tarball wasn't a URL and if the timestamp
> >> on the tarball in the src.rpm didn't match upstream even if the checksum
> >> was identical.
> >>
> >> Guess those days are gone.
> >>
> >> /rant
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Not seen this one before, but don't play with much python. The SPEC
> > really should just refer too a URL too a compressed archive as the
> > packages home site supplies them.
> >
> > https://github.com/candlepin/python-rhsm/releases
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Phil
> 
> I went to the github and it doesn't have a packaged release that matches 
> the version. I managed to find it in the build system logs, but its just 
> weird.
> 
> If I recall, formerly for a tarball to be different than what was on 
> upstream, it had to have a legal reason (e.g. patents) and a script in 
> the sources that could turn upstream tarball into the version used.
> 

Hi,

Out of interest, which version do you refer to?

Regards

Phil

-- 

Google+: https://plus.google.com/+PhilWyett
Blog: https://philwyett-hemi.blogspot.co.uk/
GitLab: https://gitlab.com/philwyett_hemi/



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

[Index of Archives]     [CentOS]     [CentOS Announce]     [CentOS Development]     [CentOS ARM Devel]     [CentOS Docs]     [CentOS Virtualization]     [Carrier Grade Linux]     [Linux Media]     [Asterisk]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Xorg]     [Linux USB]
  Powered by Linux