On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Toshio wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-02-26 at 12:40, Dag Wieers wrote:
> > > > > the 'Source-tag may not have macros' decision
> >
> > 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 ?
>
> Uhmm...
> 1] Most of the time this will fail because the builder only has the new
> source in the SOURCE area.
>
> 2] If we have a messy SOURCE area, it will still fail because the
> tarball will create the directory foo-oldver and the rpmbuild process
> will try (and fail) to access foo-newver.
>
> 3] In the few cases where this doesn't fail (because someone decided
> to use %setup -n foo-oldver [I've never seen this construct, only
> %{name}-%{version} which will fail b/c #2] or the tarball doesn't
> include versions in its toplevel directory [I have seen this]) you do
> have to rely on your QA people. But it is pretty obvious to spot.
> (Why am I downloading the 0.12 tarball to build the 0.15 RPM?)
If it is non mandatory, why are we still discussing this ?
Yes, in my situation it wouldn't be triggered by
1] I may not be your average builder
2] I have many packages that _have_ to change the %setup line,
230 of the 622 spec-files which is over 30% (remember perl-packages ?)
3] I don't rely on QA people as I'd rather automate and assume a
QA person has better things to do.
But since it's not mandatory, let's not go into this deeper.
-- dag wieers, dag@xxxxxxxxxx, http://dag.wieers.com/ --
[Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]
