On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Ville Skyttä wrote: > On Thu, 2004-02-26 at 18:44, Paul Heinlein wrote: > > On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Dag Wieers wrote: > > > > > the 'Source-tag may not have macros' decision > > > > I admittedly don't read every post on rpm-list, but I've never seen > > that discussion. Google isn't helping. Got a pointer? > > The discussion was on fedora.us lists but it has never been a "decision" > or mandatory IIRC. Anyway many people doing QA prefer macroless URLs > because it makes upstream source verification easier (think copy-paste). Well, if it's not a macro, you may have the situation where someone changes the version, forgets to change the Source-tag and releases a newer version with older software. Would the QA person notice that ? > (On the other hand, proper upstream source verification is not IMO > satisfied just by copy-pasting the URL and verifying the md5sum, but to > also check that it's the expected, in some way official URL. And iff > SourceX's are *not URLs*, I can't figure out why macros shouldn't be > used as much as possible. So it really does not matter much. History > has shown though that URLs with macros tend to bitrot, resulting in > incorrect URLs every now and then. Not that it would be a huge deal or > a "blocker" either :) I'm not against automatic verification of URLs ;) On the contrary. -- dag wieers, dag@xxxxxxxxxx, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]
